Modiba and Others v Contro Cupboards (J2583/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 63 (15 June 2007)

Modiba and Others v Contro Cupboards (J2583/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 63 (15 June 2007)

The court found that, even accepting the Respondent's version that the Applicants engaged in unprotected strike action, the lockout ceased to be protected once the Applicants unconditionally tendered their services on 5 December 2006. The continued exclusion of the Applicants from the workplace was not in response to a strike but was instead a means to effect suspension without pay pending disciplinary hearings. This purpose is not recognized by the definition of 'lockout' in the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an unprotected lockout and a breach of both the employment contract and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Applicants were therefore entitled to...

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 63
Parties
Applicant: Modiba Kleinboy and 20 Others; Respondent: Contro Cupboards
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Case Number
J2583/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Alleged Unprotected Lockout
Outcome
Application granted. The Respondent is ordered to pay each Applicant remuneration for the period 5 December 2006 to 16 March 2007.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unprotected Lockout, Remuneration Claim, Strike Action, Disciplinary Suspension
Labour Law Unprotected Lockout Remuneration Claim Strike Action Disciplinary Suspension

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modiba Kleinboy and 20 Others

Applicant

Contro Cupboards

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Payment of Remuneration Following Alleged Unprotected Lockout

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lockout implemented by the Respondent after the Applicants' unconditional tender of services was protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to remuneration for the period during which they were excluded from the workplace.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's conduct constituted a breach of the employment contract and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even accepting the Respondent's version that the Applicants engaged in unprotected strike action, the lockout ceased to be protected once the Applicants unconditionally tendered their services on 5 December 2006. The continued exclusion of the Applicants from the workplace was not in response to a strike but was instead a means to effect suspension without pay pending disciplinary hearings. This purpose is not recognized by the definition of 'lockout' in the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an unprotected lockout and a breach of both the employment contract and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Applicants were therefore entitled to...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Respondent is ordered to pay each Applicant remuneration for the period 5 December 2006 to 16 March 2007.

Orders

  • The Respondent is ordered to pay each of the Applicants the remuneration for the period 5 December 2006 to 16 March 2007.
  • The amounts referred to are to be paid within fourteen (14) days of this order.