Nampak Metal Packaging Limited t/a Bevcan v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Another (JR1949/08) [2008] ZALC 165; (2009) 30 ILJ 1610 (LC) (6 November 2008)
The court finds that the employer's proposed technological changes, specifically the modification of machinery to increase production speed, do not amount to unilateral changes to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The bonus formula, hours of work, shift patterns, and wages remain unchanged, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZALC 165
- Parties
- Applicant: Nampak Metal Packaging Limited t/a Bevcan; Respondent: National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa; Respondent: Persons whose names appear on Annexure 'A1' to the Notice of Motion
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR1949/08
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted with costs, including the costs of one counsel only.
- Judges
- PILLAY D
- Legal Topics
- Protected Strike, Unilateral Change to Terms, Technological Change, Bonus Calculation, Retrenchment Concerns
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nampak Metal Packaging Limited t/a Bevcan
Applicant
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa
Respondent
Persons whose names appear on Annexure 'A1' to the Notice of Motion
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Is the proposed strike protected under the Labour Relations Act given the nature of the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi
The court finds that the employer's proposed technological changes, specifically the modification of machinery to increase production speed, do not amount to unilateral changes to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The bonus formula, hours of work, shift patterns, and wages remain unchanged, and employees are not required to exert more effort. The respondents failed to provide evidence that the changes would negatively affect their employment conditions. The real dispute concerns wage increases, not changes to employment terms. Consequently, the proposed strike is unprotected under the Labour Relations Act.
Court Disposition
Application granted with costs, including the costs of one counsel only.
Orders
- The application to interdict the strike is granted.
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, limited to the costs of one counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
JR1949/08/ev 4 JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO: JR1949/08
DATE: 2008-11-06
REPORTABLE
In the matter between:
NAMPAK METAL PACKAGING LIMITED
T/A BEVCAN Applicant
and
THE NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS
OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR
ON ANNEXURE âA1â TO THE NOTICE OF Second and
MOTION
Further Respondents
_________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
PILLAY D, J:
The singular issue for determination in this urgent application to interdict a strike is whether the technological changes proposed by the applicant employer amounts to unilateral changes to the second respondent employees' terms and conditions of employment. If the answer to this question is "yes" then the proposed strike by the employees will be protected. If the answer is "no" the proposed strike will be unprotected.
The employer proposed to modify its machinery to increase the speed of producing beverage cans from 1600 to 1 800 cans per minute, the changes are to the machinery only. None of the changes affect the employees' terms and conditions of service. Their bonus is assessed on the same formula. In terms of the formula, the target remains 85% of efficient machine utilization (EMU). Bonus is calculated at 2.8% of an employees basic wage and is paid for every 1% achieved above target. Although the modified machines will produce 200 cans more per minute, the employees have to exert no greater effort to produce the extra cans. As the modified machines are capable of easily achieving the target of 1800 cans per minute, the employeesâ bonus remains unaffected.
The first respondent trade union and the employees adduce no evidence to suggest that the modification of the machinery will change any conditions of employment, the employees' hours of work, shift patterns or wages.
Other than a bald allegation that bonuses could be reduced, they do not demonstrate how this will occur, or how the changes to the machinery will make the targets less achievable if the employees continue to operate the machines in exactly the same way after the modification as before and the machines are geared to achieve the higher target.
Nor can the respondents refute evidence that the changes will not require them to work harder. In the opinion of the court, the respondentsâ true concern is to secure for themselves a better wage remuneration package based on the higher production targets. The real dispute, namely the respondents' quest for a wage increase, is camouflaged as a dispute based on alleged unilateral changes to conditions of employment. Another concern of the respondents may be the possibility of retrenchment if fewer workers are needed to meet production targets.
The Court finds that the employerâs proposed changes to technology do not amount to unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. Consequently, a strike triggered by the technological changes is unprotected.
The application is granted with costs, such costs to include the costs of one counsel only.
________________________
PILLAY D, J
Judge of the Labour Court
Date of hearing: 05 November 2008
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2008
Date of Editing: 11 December 2008
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant: Adv N Cassim SC, Adv M J van As
Instructed by Fiona Leppan of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyer Inc
For the Respondent: Adv J G van der Riet SC
Instructed by Ruth Edmonds Attorneys