Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture T/A South Deep v National Union of Mineworkers (J788/03) [2003] ZALC 62 (27 May 2003)

Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture T/A South Deep v National Union of Mineworkers (J788/03) [2003] ZALC 62 (27 May 2003)

The court found that, despite the initial defect in the referral form citing Mr Mataboge as the employer, both parties understood that the dispute was between Placer Dome and NUM. The amendment to the referral, substituting Placer Dome as the employer, together with the conduct of the parties, constituted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 62
Parties
Applicant: Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture T/A South Deep; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2003
Case Number
J788/03
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Anticipated Return Date on Rule Nisi; Application to Discharge Interim Interdict
Outcome
Interim interdict discharged with costs; respondents found to have complied with section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Strike Procedure, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Substantial Compliance, Amendment of Referral, Interdict Against Strike
Labour Law Strike Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Substantial Compliance Amendment of Referral Interdict Against Strike

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Placer Dome Western Areas Joint Venture T/A South Deep

Applicant

National Union of Mineworkers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Anticipated Return Date on Rule Nisi; Application to Discharge Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral of the dispute to the CCMA was valid despite the incorrect citation of the employer.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment of the referral cured the defect for purposes of section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a protected strike were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the initial defect in the referral form citing Mr Mataboge as the employer, both parties understood that the dispute was between Placer Dome and NUM. The amendment to the referral, substituting Placer Dome as the employer, together with the conduct of the parties, constituted substantial compliance with section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The court held that NUM was not obliged to withdraw and re-refer the dispute, and that the requirements for a protected strike had been met. Accordingly, the interim interdict was discharged with costs.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict discharged with costs; respondents found to have complied with section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1.9 of the rule nisi is discharged with costs.
  • The respondents are entitled to proceed with the protected strike.