Natural Stone Processors (Pty) Ltd v UNICIMESHAWU (J62/03) [2003] ZALC 21 (10 February 2003)

Natural Stone Processors (Pty) Ltd v UNICIMESHAWU (J62/03) [2003] ZALC 21 (10 February 2003)

The court found that the union's resumption of the protected strike was lawful under the Labour Relations Act, as the suspension was not a termination but a pause pending negotiations. The employer's disciplinary action against employees for alleged misconduct during the strike was permissible only if conducted fairly and without victimisation. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for urgent relief, as the requirements for an interdict were not met. The court emphasised the importance of collective bargaining and the right to strike within the statutory framework.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 21
Parties
Applicant: Natural Stone Processors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: UNICIMESHAWU
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2003
Case Number
J62/03
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Following Resumption of Protected Strike
Outcome
Application for urgent relief dismissed.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Disciplinary Action During Strike, Urgent Interdict, Collective Bargaining
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Strike Disciplinary Action During Strike Urgent Interdict Collective Bargaining

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

Natural Stone Processors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

UNICIMESHAWU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Following Resumption of Protected Strike

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the resumption of the protected strike by union members was lawful under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the employer's disciplinary action against employees for conduct during the strike was permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to urgent relief to prevent the resumption of the strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the union's resumption of the protected strike was lawful under the Labour Relations Act, as the suspension was not a termination but a pause pending negotiations. The employer's disciplinary action against employees for alleged misconduct during the strike was permissible only if conducted fairly and without victimisation. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for urgent relief, as the requirements for an interdict were not met. The court emphasised the importance of collective bargaining and the right to strike within the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Application for urgent relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for urgent relief is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.