Mlondo and Others v Electrowave (Pty) Ltd (D343/2021) [2023] ZALCD 8; [2023] 8 BLLR 813 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1751 (LC) (18 May 2023)

Mlondo and Others v Electrowave (Pty) Ltd (D343/2021) [2023] ZALCD 8; [2023] 8 BLLR 813 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1751 (LC) (18 May 2023)

The court found that the applicants participated in an unprotected strike on 19 January 2021, as evidenced by their own pleadings and conduct. The respondent's actions, including the implementation of short time and the job grading process, did not amount to provocation justifying the strike. The disciplinary process was found to be substantively and procedurally fair: clear ultimatums were issued, hearings were chaired by an independent party, and union representation was permitted for shop stewards. The applicants' arguments regarding procedural unfairness and the legality of the ultimatums were rejected. The applicants failed to comply with statutory dispute resolution mechanisms and...

Citation
[2023] ZALCD 8
Parties
Applicant: Bernard Mlondo & 35 Others; Respondent: Electrowave (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
D343/2021
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Referral dismissed; costs awarded against applicants' representatives.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Collective Agreements, Disciplinary Hearing, Costs Order
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Collective Agreements Disciplinary Hearing 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Mlondo & 35 Others

Applicant

Electrowave (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants participated in an unprotected strike on 19 January 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct provoked the strike.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants participated in an unprotected strike on 19 January 2021, as evidenced by their own pleadings and conduct. The respondent's actions, including the implementation of short time and the job grading process, did not amount to provocation justifying the strike. The disciplinary process was found to be substantively and procedurally fair: clear ultimatums were issued, hearings were chaired by an independent party, and union representation was permitted for shop stewards. The applicants' arguments regarding procedural unfairness and the legality of the ultimatums were rejected. The applicants failed to comply with statutory dispute resolution mechanisms and...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed; costs awarded against applicants' representatives.

Orders

  • The referral is dismissed.
  • The respondent is awarded fifty percent (50%) of its taxed costs, to be paid de bonis propriis, on the scale as between attorney and client.