Masilela and Others v Reinhardt Transport and Others (JS38/07) [2010] ZALC 99; (2010) 31 ILJ 2942 (LC) (19 May 2010)

Masilela and Others v Reinhardt Transport and Others (JS38/07) [2010] ZALC 99; (2010) 31 ILJ 2942 (LC) (19 May 2010)

The court found that the applicants' conduct constituted an unprotected strike as defined in section 213 of the LRA, since they refused to work unless their demands were met and did not comply with procedural requirements for a protected strike. The employer issued clear and unambiguous ultimatums, provided sufficient time for compliance, and offered opportunities for representations. The dismissals were effected only after the applicants persisted in their refusal to work and ignored advice from their union and shop stewards. The court held that the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair, as the employer complied with the Code of Good Practice and afforded the applicants...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 99
Parties
Applicant: David Masilela and Others; Respondent: Reinhardt Transport (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: J.J Enslin; Respondent: D.J Reinhardt; Respondent: Robert Axer
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2010
Case Number
JS38/07
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Bhoola
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Ultimatum Requirements, Collective Bargaining, Dismissal for Strike Action
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Ultimatum Requirements Collective Bargaining Dismissal for Strike Action

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Masilela and Others

Applicant

Reinhardt Transport (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

J.J Enslin

Respondent

D.J Reinhardt

Respondent

Robert Axer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' conduct constituted an unprotected strike.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the employer complied with the requirements for issuing ultimatums and affording opportunity for representations before dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' conduct constituted an unprotected strike as defined in section 213 of the LRA, since they refused to work unless their demands were met and did not comply with procedural requirements for a protected strike. The employer issued clear and unambiguous ultimatums, provided sufficient time for compliance, and offered opportunities for representations. The dismissals were effected only after the applicants persisted in their refusal to work and ignored advice from their union and shop stewards. The court held that the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair, as the employer complied with the Code of Good Practice and afforded the applicants...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ claim is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the first respondent’s costs jointly and severally, the one paying, the others to be absolved.