NUMSA v Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Ltd (JA51/2000) [2002] ZALAC 9; [2002] 6 BLLR 511 (LAC) (19 April 2002)

NUMSA v Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Ltd (JA51/2000) [2002] ZALAC 9; [2002] 6 BLLR 511 (LAC) (19 April 2002)

The court found that the one-operator two-machines requirement was an integral part of the six-day/three-shift system, and this was known to both parties at the time the undertaking was given. The documentation and meetings preceding the agreement made it clear that the new system included the doubling-up of machine operation. The omission of explicit reference to the task allocation in later correspondence was immaterial, as the operational requirements had been thoroughly explained and accepted. The employees' refusal to operate two machines constituted a repudiation of their undertaking and amounted to unprotected industrial action. The employer was therefore entitled to dismiss them....

Citation
[2002] ZALAC 9
Parties
Appellant: NUMSA o.b.o its members; Respondent: Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2002
Case Number
JA51/2000
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
M.T.R. Mogoeng, R.M.M. Zondo, D. van Reenen
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Refusal to Work, Job Description Dispute, Collective Bargaining, Retrenchment, Unprotected Strike Action
Labour Law Dismissal for Refusal to Work Job Description Dispute Collective Bargaining Retrenchment Unprotected Strike Action

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA o.b.o its members

Appellant

Lumex Clipsal (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employees were contractually obliged to operate two machines under the six-day/three-shift system.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to operate two machines constituted unprotected industrial action justifying dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement to work under protest included the one-operator two-machines requirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the one-operator two-machines requirement was an integral part of the six-day/three-shift system, and this was known to both parties at the time the undertaking was given. The documentation and meetings preceding the agreement made it clear that the new system included the doubling-up of machine operation. The omission of explicit reference to the task allocation in later correspondence was immaterial, as the operational requirements had been thoroughly explained and accepted. The employees' refusal to operate two machines constituted a repudiation of their undertaking and amounted to unprotected industrial action. The employer was therefore entitled to dismiss them....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There will be no order as to costs.