National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Via Doro Manufacturing Ltd (J853/00) [2000] ZALC 11 (10 March 2000)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Via Doro Manufacturing Ltd (J853/00) [2000] ZALC 11 (10 March 2000)

The court found that the withholding of labour by the applicants was not a strike, as it was a contractual remedy for non-payment. Consequently, the respondent's lockout was unlawful, as there was no strike to justify it. The lockout was not defensive and was implemented with demands for new employment terms, including acceptance of possible dismissal or retrenchment. The lockout continued after remuneration was paid, rendering disputes about tender of services immaterial. The court held that retrenchment during a lockout is not expressly permitted by statute, and meaningful consultation was impossible under the circumstances. The urgency of the application was justified by the...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 11
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers and Others; Respondent: Via Doro Manufacturing Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2000
Case Number
J853/00
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Ancillary Relief; Post Lockout, Seeking Restraint of Dismissal or Layoff
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is restrained from dismissing or laying off the applicants pending proper consultation.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Lockout, Remuneration, Strike Definition, Retrenchment, Basic Conditions of Employment, Urgent Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Lockout Remuneration Strike Definition Retrenchment Basic Conditions of Employment Urgent Interdict

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers and Others

Applicant

Via Doro Manufacturing Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Ancillary Relief; Post Lockout, Seeking Restraint of Dismissal or Layoff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withholding of labour by the applicants constituted a strike under South African labour law.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's lockout was lawful in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent may proceed with retrenchment during or after an unlawful lockout.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the withholding of labour by the applicants was not a strike, as it was a contractual remedy for non-payment. Consequently, the respondent's lockout was unlawful, as there was no strike to justify it. The lockout was not defensive and was implemented with demands for new employment terms, including acceptance of possible dismissal or retrenchment. The lockout continued after remuneration was paid, rendering disputes about tender of services immaterial. The court held that retrenchment during a lockout is not expressly permitted by statute, and meaningful consultation was impossible under the circumstances. The urgency of the application was justified by the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is restrained from dismissing or laying off the applicants pending proper consultation.

Orders

  • Order granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 6 of the amended order prayed.
  • Respondent is restrained from dismissing or laying off the applicants pending proper consultation.