NASECGWU v Donco Investments (Pty) Ltd (J1149/09) [2009] ZALC 114; (2010) 31 ILJ 977 (LC) ; [2010] 3 BLLR 271 (LC) (20 November 2009)

NASECGWU v Donco Investments (Pty) Ltd (J1149/09) [2009] ZALC 114; (2010) 31 ILJ 977 (LC) ; [2010] 3 BLLR 271 (LC) (20 November 2009)

The court held that section 64(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act mandates a minimum of 48 hours' written notice prior to the commencement of a lock-out. The Respondent's attempt to substitute payment in lieu of notice does not fulfill the statutory requirement, as the purpose of the notice is to allow parties time to reflect, negotiate, and potentially resolve the dispute before industrial action commences. The lock-out instituted by the Respondent was therefore unlawful due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. The Applicants are entitled to an interdict against the continuation of the lock-out and to remuneration for the period they were unlawfully locked out.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 114
Parties
Applicant: NASECGWU; Applicant: S Seleke and 16 others; Respondent: Donco Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Case Number
J1149/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The lock-out instituted by the Respondent is declared unlawful. The Respondent is interdicted from continuing with the lock-out and ordered to pay the Applicants their remuneration for the period of the lock-out, as well as costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Lock Out Procedure, Strike Notice Requirements, Unlawful Lock Out, Remuneration Claim, Collective Bargaining, Labour Relations Act Interpretation
Labour Law Lock Out Procedure Strike Notice Requirements Unlawful Lock Out Remuneration Claim Collective Bargaining Labour Relations Act Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NASECGWU

Applicant

S Seleke and 16 others

Applicant

Donco Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lock-out instituted by the Respondent on 16 April 2009 was unlawful due to non-compliance with section 64(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether payment in lieu of the 48-hour notice period satisfies the statutory requirement for a lawful lock-out.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are entitled to remuneration for the period of the unlawful lock-out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 64(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act mandates a minimum of 48 hours' written notice prior to the commencement of a lock-out. The Respondent's attempt to substitute payment in lieu of notice does not fulfill the statutory requirement, as the purpose of the notice is to allow parties time to reflect, negotiate, and potentially resolve the dispute before industrial action commences. The lock-out instituted by the Respondent was therefore unlawful due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. The Applicants are entitled to an interdict against the continuation of the lock-out and to remuneration for the period they were unlawfully locked out.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The lock-out instituted by the Respondent is declared unlawful. The Respondent is interdicted from continuing with the lock-out and ordered to pay the Applicants their remuneration for the period of the lock-out, as well as costs.

Orders

  • The lock-out instituted by the Respondent on 16 April 2009 constitutes an unlawful lock-out.
  • The Respondent is interdicted from continuing with the lock-out.