NUM v Afgem Ltd and Others (J581/06) [2006] ZALCJHB 32 (21 April 2006)

NUM v Afgem Ltd and Others (J581/06) [2006] ZALCJHB 32 (21 April 2006)

The court found that the respondents failed to consult NUM in good faith and did not provide adequate notice of the intended changes to employment conditions. The lockout was deemed unlawful as it was used offensively while retaining a maintenance crew, contrary to the Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, the referral to the CCMA was questionable due to the confusion over the identity of the employer. The respondents were not transparent or fair in their dealings with NUM and the employees. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought by NUM, including reinstatement of employees and costs against the third respondent.

Citation
[2006] ZALCJHB 32
Parties
Applicant: NUM; Respondent: Afgem Ltd; Respondent: Simolotse Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Afgem Diamonds (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2006
Case Number
J581/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of NUM; orders for reinstatement and costs issued.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Lockout, Change of Conditions of Employment, Unpaid Leave, Consultation With Union, Employer Identity
Labour Law Lockout Change of Conditions of Employment Unpaid Leave Consultation With Union Employer Identity

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUM

Applicant

Afgem Ltd

Respondent

Simolotse Mine (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Afgem Diamonds (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' lockout of employees was lawful under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents properly consulted with NUM regarding the change of employment conditions.
  3. 3 Whether the referral to the CCMA was valid given the dispute over the identity of the employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to consult NUM in good faith and did not provide adequate notice of the intended changes to employment conditions. The lockout was deemed unlawful as it was used offensively while retaining a maintenance crew, contrary to the Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, the referral to the CCMA was questionable due to the confusion over the identity of the employer. The respondents were not transparent or fair in their dealings with NUM and the employees. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought by NUM, including reinstatement of employees and costs against the third respondent.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of NUM; orders for reinstatement and costs issued.

Orders

  • The second respondent is directed to reinstate the employees with effect from 1 April 2006.
  • Paragraph 2 is amended by deletion of 'first and'; order as amended is granted.