NUCCAWU v Transnet Limited t/a Portnet (C552/2000) [2000] ZALC 69; [2001] 2 BLLR 203 (LC) (3 August 2000)

NUCCAWU v Transnet Limited t/a Portnet (C552/2000) [2000] ZALC 69; [2001] 2 BLLR 203 (LC) (3 August 2000)

The court found that the applicant's members, though casual and not guaranteed employment, were employees as defined by the Labour Relations Act because they were entitled to be considered for work from the pool created by the respondent. The respondent's refusal to consider them for employment unless they signed a new contract constituted a lock-out, as it was an exclusion designed to compel acceptance of new terms. The lock-out was unlawful because the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 64 of the Act. The matter was urgent due to the ongoing prejudice suffered by the applicant's members, and the court exercised its discretion to hear the case despite...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 69
Parties
Applicant: NUCCAWU; Respondent: Transnet Limited t/a Portnet
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2000
Case Number
C552/2000
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interdict Application Before Labour Court
Outcome
Application granted; respondent interdicted from locking out applicant's members and ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Lock Out, Urgent Interdict, Employment Relationship, Conciliation Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Lock Out Urgent Interdict Employment Relationship Conciliation Requirement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUCCAWU

Applicant

Transnet Limited t/a Portnet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interdict Application Before Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the applicant's members employees as contemplated by the Labour Relations Act and Basic Conditions of Employment Act?
  2. 2 Does the respondent's conduct constitute a lock-out under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act?
  3. 3 Is the lock-out unlawful due to non-compliance with procedural requirements?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's members, though casual and not guaranteed employment, were employees as defined by the Labour Relations Act because they were entitled to be considered for work from the pool created by the respondent. The respondent's refusal to consider them for employment unless they signed a new contract constituted a lock-out, as it was an exclusion designed to compel acceptance of new terms. The lock-out was unlawful because the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 64 of the Act. The matter was urgent due to the ongoing prejudice suffered by the applicant's members, and the court exercised its discretion to hear the case despite...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent interdicted from locking out applicant's members and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • Respondent is interdicted from locking out the applicant's members referred to in Annexure JD1 to its founding papers.
  • Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.