Koornfontein Mines v NUM obo Members (J371/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 206 (24 May 2017)

Koornfontein Mines v NUM obo Members (J371/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 206 (24 May 2017)

The court found that the dispute was not about benefits but rather a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment, specifically the moratorium on leave encashment. Employees had a contractual right to accumulate and encash leave, which was unilaterally altered by the employer. The procedural requirements for a protected strike under section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act were met, including referral to the CCMA and issuance of a strike notice. The strike notice was found to be clear, demanding restoration of the status quo. The demand for leave encashment was lawful, as the contract provided more favourable terms than the statutory minimum under the Basic Conditions of...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 206
Parties
Applicant: Koornfontein Mines; Respondent: NUM obo Members
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
J371/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application to interdict the strike dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Unilateral Change to Terms, Leave Encashment, Basic Conditions of Employment, Procedural Compliance, Arbitration Limitation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Interdict Unilateral Change to Terms Leave Encashment Basic Conditions of Employment Procedural Compliance Arbitration Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koornfontein Mines

Applicant

NUM obo Members

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike action by the respondent's members is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining the strike under section 68(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute concerns benefits or a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute was not about benefits but rather a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment, specifically the moratorium on leave encashment. Employees had a contractual right to accumulate and encash leave, which was unilaterally altered by the employer. The procedural requirements for a protected strike under section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act were met, including referral to the CCMA and issuance of a strike notice. The strike notice was found to be clear, demanding restoration of the status quo. The demand for leave encashment was lawful, as the contract provided more favourable terms than the statutory minimum under the Basic Conditions of...

Court Disposition

Application to interdict the strike dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to interdict the strike is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.