NUMSA and Others v Andrag Machinery (Pty) Ltd (C248/02) [2002] ZALC 22; [2002] 8 BLLR 780 (LC) (8 March 2002)

NUMSA and Others v Andrag Machinery (Pty) Ltd (C248/02) [2002] ZALC 22; [2002] 8 BLLR 780 (LC) (8 March 2002)

The court held that the lawfulness of the respondent's lock-out and the employer's demands must be determined by the Bargaining Council, as the dispute centers on the interpretation and application of the Bargaining Council Agreement. The applicants have already referred the dispute to the Bargaining Council, which is the appropriate forum for resolution. The prejudice suffered by the employees, namely non-payment of salaries during the lock-out, can be remedied if the Bargaining Council later finds in their favor, allowing them to claim back pay. As the applicants have an alternative remedy and the matter is pending before the Bargaining Council, the court found no basis to grant the...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 22
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA & Others; Respondent: Andrag Machinery (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2002
Case Number
C248/02
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before Labour Court
Outcome
Application denied; no order as to costs.
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Lock Out, Bargaining Council Agreement, Strike Action, Unlawful Demands
Labour Law Lock Out Bargaining Council Agreement Strike Action Unlawful Demands

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA & Others

Applicant

Andrag Machinery (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lock-out implemented by the respondent is unlawful under the Bargaining Council Agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict declaring the lock-out unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have an alternative remedy available through the Bargaining Council.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the lawfulness of the respondent's lock-out and the employer's demands must be determined by the Bargaining Council, as the dispute centers on the interpretation and application of the Bargaining Council Agreement. The applicants have already referred the dispute to the Bargaining Council, which is the appropriate forum for resolution. The prejudice suffered by the employees, namely non-payment of salaries during the lock-out, can be remedied if the Bargaining Council later finds in their favor, allowing them to claim back pay. As the applicants have an alternative remedy and the matter is pending before the Bargaining Council, the court found no basis to grant the...

Court Disposition

Application denied; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is denied.
  • There is no order as to costs.