NUMSA and Others v Pro Roof Cape (Pty) Ltd (LC156/03 , C156/03) [2005] ZALC 14; [2005] 11 BLLR 1126 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 1705 (LC) (2 August 2005)

NUMSA and Others v Pro Roof Cape (Pty) Ltd (LC156/03 , C156/03) [2005] ZALC 14; [2005] 11 BLLR 1126 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 1705 (LC) (2 August 2005)

The court found that the applicants' conduct constituted a strike as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act and that the strike was unprotected due to non-compliance with section 64. However, the employer's history of underpayment and failure to honour collective agreements contributed significantly to the employees' loss of trust and the subsequent industrial action. The employer failed to provide written guarantees or timely payment of bonuses, and the notices issued to employees were adversarial and did not address the underlying grievance. The employees' conduct was peaceful and of limited duration, with minimal harm caused. The employer acted precipitously in effecting...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 14
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA and 41 Others; Respondent: Pro Roof Cape (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2005
Case Number
C156/03
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
The dismissal of the individual applicants was declared procedurally and substantively unfair. Reinstatement was ordered for specified applicants, with compensation to be determined for others.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Unfair Dismissal, Collective Agreement, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Unfair Dismissal Collective Agreement Remedies for Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA and 41 Others

Applicant

Pro Roof Cape (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the individual applicants for participation in an unprotected strike was procedurally and substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the employer's conduct regarding payment of bonuses and benefits contributed to the industrial action.
  3. 3 What remedies are appropriate for the unfair dismissal of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' conduct constituted a strike as defined in section 213 of the Labour Relations Act and that the strike was unprotected due to non-compliance with section 64. However, the employer's history of underpayment and failure to honour collective agreements contributed significantly to the employees' loss of trust and the subsequent industrial action. The employer failed to provide written guarantees or timely payment of bonuses, and the notices issued to employees were adversarial and did not address the underlying grievance. The employees' conduct was peaceful and of limited duration, with minimal harm caused. The employer acted precipitously in effecting...

Court Disposition

The dismissal of the individual applicants was declared procedurally and substantively unfair. Reinstatement was ordered for specified applicants, with compensation to be determined for others.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the individual applicants is declared to have been procedurally and substantively unfair.
  • The respondent is directed to reinstate the following individual applicants on the same terms and conditions of employment that prevailed at the time of their dismissal on 20 December 2002: W Nete, D Ngadlela, P Mofekeng, S Dyantyi, P Ngqubeka, I Dyanti, J Magijima, J Mofokeng, L Rigala, S Pheko, E Jankie, E...