NUM and Others v Power Construction (Pty) Ltd (C85/2014) [2016] ZALCCT 24; (2017) 38 ILJ 227 (LC) (27 July 2016)

NUM and Others v Power Construction (Pty) Ltd (C85/2014) [2016] ZALCCT 24; (2017) 38 ILJ 227 (LC) (27 July 2016)

The court found that the employees participated in an unprotected strike over three days, despite repeated ultimatums and interventions by union representatives. The weather conditions on Friday, 16 August 2013, did not justify refusal to work, as expert evidence indicated only light drizzle and no significant impediment to outdoor work. The employees failed to comply with the Labour Relations Act and did not refer their grievance to the CCMA or Bargaining Council, even when advised to do so. The employer issued clear ultimatums and provided opportunities for reflection and representation, including an offer of reinstatement after dismissal. The absence of a formal disciplinary hearing...

Citation
[2016] ZALCCT 24
Parties
Applicant: NUM; Applicant: Sipho Sigcau & 13 others; Respondent: Power Construction (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Case Number
C85/2014
Procedural Posture
Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the employees for participation in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair. No order as to costs.
Judges
A Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Dismissal for Strike Action, Procedural Fairness, Sectoral Determination, Disciplinary Hearing Requirements
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Dismissal for Strike Action Procedural Fairness Sectoral Determination Disciplinary Hearing Requirements

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUM

Applicant

Sipho Sigcau & 13 others

Applicant

Power Construction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of employees for participation in an unprotected strike was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was procedurally fair in the absence of a disciplinary hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the weather conditions justified the refusal to work and the subsequent strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the employees participated in an unprotected strike over three days, despite repeated ultimatums and interventions by union representatives. The weather conditions on Friday, 16 August 2013, did not justify refusal to work, as expert evidence indicated only light drizzle and no significant impediment to outdoor work. The employees failed to comply with the Labour Relations Act and did not refer their grievance to the CCMA or Bargaining Council, even when advised to do so. The employer issued clear ultimatums and provided opportunities for reflection and representation, including an offer of reinstatement after dismissal. The absence of a formal disciplinary hearing...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the employees for participation in an unprotected strike was substantively and procedurally fair. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the employees was fair.
  • There is no order as to costs.