National Union of Mine Workers v Freegold Consolidation Gold Mines (J259/98) [1998] ZALC 3 (6 March 1998)

National Union of Mine Workers v Freegold Consolidation Gold Mines (J259/98) [1998] ZALC 3 (6 March 1998)

The court found that, despite extensive consultations and meetings between the parties over several months, no binding agreement was reached on alternative measures that would prevent the closure of the shafts and the retrenchment of workers. The documentary evidence did not support the applicant's contention that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 3
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: Freegold Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited (President Steyn Mine); Respondent: Freegold Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited (Western Holdings)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 1998
Case Number
J259/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application
Outcome
Applications dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
R M M Zondo
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Consultation, Urgent Interdict, Collective Bargaining, Productivity Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Consultation Urgent Interdict Collective Bargaining Productivity Agreement

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

Freegold Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited (President Steyn Mine)

Respondent

Freegold Consolidated Gold Mines (Operations) Limited (Western Holdings)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to close the shafts and retrench workers without implementing agreed alternative measures.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents discharged their obligation to consult with the applicant on the timing of dismissals.
  3. 3 Whether there were sufficient grounds for the applications to be brought as urgent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite extensive consultations and meetings between the parties over several months, no binding agreement was reached on alternative measures that would prevent the closure of the shafts and the retrenchment of workers. The documentary evidence did not support the applicant's contention that such measures were agreed upon. The union was aware of the risk of closure and had opportunities to influence the timing of dismissals, including after the board's decision, but elected to declare a dispute and withdraw from further consultation. The respondents' obligation to consult was discharged under these circumstances. The applications were brought with sufficient...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applications in both matters are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.