Marapula and Others v Consteen (Pty) Limited (J1086/98) [1999] ZALC 63 (23 April 1999)

Marapula and Others v Consteen (Pty) Limited (J1086/98) [1999] ZALC 63 (23 April 1999)

The court found that the applicants participated in an unprotected strike without attempting to comply with the dispute resolution mechanisms prescribed by the Labour Relations Act. The employer issued a clear ultimatum, provided sufficient time for reflection, and communicated the consequences of non-compliance. The majority of employees returned to work, but the applicants persisted in their unlawful conduct. The evidence did not establish that the strike was in response to unjustified conduct by the employer, nor was there credible evidence of attempts to resolve the grievance through proper channels. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair, as the applicants...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 63
Parties
Applicant: Jackson Marapula and Others; Respondent: Consteen (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 1999
Case Number
J1086/98
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Jajbhay
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Fair Dismissal, Ultimatum Procedure, Conciliation, Code of Good Practice, Constitutional Right to Strike
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Fair Dismissal Ultimatum Procedure Conciliation Code of Good Practice Constitutional Right to Strike

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Marapula and Others

Applicant

Consteen (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of employees for participation in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the employer complied with the requirements of the Labour Relations Act and the Code of Good Practice in issuing an ultimatum.
  3. 3 Whether the strike was in response to unjustified conduct by the employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants participated in an unprotected strike without attempting to comply with the dispute resolution mechanisms prescribed by the Labour Relations Act. The employer issued a clear ultimatum, provided sufficient time for reflection, and communicated the consequences of non-compliance. The majority of employees returned to work, but the applicants persisted in their unlawful conduct. The evidence did not establish that the strike was in response to unjustified conduct by the employer, nor was there credible evidence of attempts to resolve the grievance through proper channels. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair, as the applicants...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application of Jackson Marapula and Others is dismissed with costs.