NUMSA on behalf of its members v Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Limited (J1070/98) [2000] ZALC 85; [2001] 2 BLLR 220 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 714 (LC) (24 August 2000)

NUMSA on behalf of its members v Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Limited (J1070/98) [2000] ZALC 85; [2001] 2 BLLR 220 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 714 (LC) (24 August 2000)

The court found that the requirement for operators to attend to two machines did not amount to a major work reorganisation under Clause 33(3) of the main agreement, nor did it constitute a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment. The nature of the work was not so fundamentally altered as to fall outside the scope of the original contract. The evidence showed that the dual function was feasible and had been performed previously. The refusal to comply was motivated by wage demands rather than any genuine impossibility or unreasonableness. The company had communicated its operational rationale and attempted consultation. The work stoppage was unwarranted, unreasonable,...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 85
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA on behalf of its members; Respondent: Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2000
Case Number
J1070/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change to Terms, Major Work Reorganisation, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Dismissal for Misconduct, Consultation Requirements, Reasonableness of Instruction
Labour Law Unilateral Change to Terms Major Work Reorganisation Collective Bargaining Agreement Dismissal for Misconduct Consultation Requirements Reasonableness of Instruction

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA on behalf of its members

Applicant

Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the company fail to comply with Clause 33(3) of the main agreement when requiring employees to operate two machines per operator?
  2. 2 Did the two machines/one operator requirement amount to a unilateral variation of the employment contract of the employees?
  3. 3 If there was no unilateral variation, was the instruction to operate two machines simultaneously unreasonable?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the requirement for operators to attend to two machines did not amount to a major work reorganisation under Clause 33(3) of the main agreement, nor did it constitute a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment. The nature of the work was not so fundamentally altered as to fall outside the scope of the original contract. The evidence showed that the dual function was feasible and had been performed previously. The refusal to comply was motivated by wage demands rather than any genuine impossibility or unreasonableness. The company had communicated its operational rationale and attempted consultation. The work stoppage was unwarranted, unreasonable,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first and further applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the respondent's costs.