Mawethu Civils (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Union Mine Workers and Others (P562/11) [2013] ZALCPE 4; (2013) 34 ILJ 2624 (LC) (12 February 2013)

Mawethu Civils (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Union Mine Workers and Others (P562/11) [2013] ZALCPE 4; (2013) 34 ILJ 2624 (LC) (12 February 2013)

The court held that section 65(1)(c) of the LRA must be interpreted literally, restricting its application to disputes referable to arbitration or adjudication under the LRA itself, and not under other labour legislation such as the BCEA. Since the dispute in question could be referred to the Labour Court under the BCEA, it fell outside the scope of section 65(1)(c). The applicants failed to establish a right to interdict the respondents from participating in the strike. The interim order was discharged and costs awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2013] ZALCPE 4
Parties
Applicant: Mawethu Civils (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mawethu Plant (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: Employees of the first and second applicant that are members of NUM and further respondents
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Case Number
P562/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation or Discharge of Interim Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim order discharged; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Section 65 Lra, Interpretation of Statutes, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Interdict, Costs Order
Labour Law Protected Strike Section 65 Lra Interpretation of Statutes Basic Conditions of Employment Act Interdict Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mawethu Civils (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mawethu Plant (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

National Union of Mineworkers

Respondent

Employees of the first and second applicant that are members of NUM and further respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation or Discharge of Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike action by the respondents was protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether section 65(1)(c) of the LRA prohibits the strike where the issue in dispute is referable to the Labour Court under other legislation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining the respondents from striking.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 65(1)(c) of the LRA must be interpreted literally, restricting its application to disputes referable to arbitration or adjudication under the LRA itself, and not under other labour legislation such as the BCEA. Since the dispute in question could be referred to the Labour Court under the BCEA, it fell outside the scope of section 65(1)(c). The applicants failed to establish a right to interdict the respondents from participating in the strike. The interim order was discharged and costs awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim order discharged; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The rule is discharged.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs.