Pikitup (SOC) Ltd v SAMWU obo Members and Others (J164/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 192; (2014) 35 ILJ 201 (LC); [2013] 11 BLLR 1118 (LC) (13 August 2013)

Pikitup (SOC) Ltd v SAMWU obo Members and Others (J164/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 192; (2014) 35 ILJ 201 (LC); [2013] 11 BLLR 1118 (LC) (13 August 2013)

The court held that the implementation of breathalyser testing and biometric access control systems are matters of mutual interest, as they directly affect employees' working conditions and interests. The demand to desist from breathalyser testing was not shown to be unlawful, as the employer is not compelled by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 192
Parties
Applicant: Pikitup (SOC) Ltd; Respondent: SAMWU obo Members; Respondent: Employees of the Applicant whose names appear on Annexure 'A' & Further Respondents
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2013
Case Number
J164/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict
Outcome
The rule nisi is discharged. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.
Judges
Hulley
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Matters of Mutual Interest, Occupational Health and Safety, Collective Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Interdict Matters of Mutual Interest Occupational Health and Safety Collective Bargaining Managerial Prerogative

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pikitup (SOC) Ltd

Applicant

SAMWU obo Members

Respondent

Employees of the Applicant whose names appear on Annexure 'A' & Further Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the implementation of new alcohol/substance abuse and access control systems are matters of mutual interest permitting strike action.
  2. 2 Whether the demands to cease breathalyser and biometric systems are lawful and can be supported by protected strike action.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's tender regarding biometric access control resolves the dispute and ends the entitlement to strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the implementation of breathalyser testing and biometric access control systems are matters of mutual interest, as they directly affect employees' working conditions and interests. The demand to desist from breathalyser testing was not shown to be unlawful, as the employer is not compelled by statute to use breathalysers as the only method to ensure safety. The applicant failed to prove that breathalyser testing was the only reasonably practicable method to discharge its statutory obligations. The respondents' concerns regarding hygiene, dignity, and reliability of the breathalyser system were legitimate matters for collective bargaining. Regarding the biometric access...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi is discharged. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.