Profal v National Entitled Workers Union (J4285/01) [2001] ZALC 158 (3 October 2001)

Profal v National Entitled Workers Union (J4285/01) [2001] ZALC 158 (3 October 2001)

The court found that the dispute between the parties related to the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement of the MEIBC, which governs wages and substantive conditions of employment. As such, the dispute must be resolved through the procedures prescribed in section 24 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant established urgency and a clear right to relief, as it would suffer irreparable harm if industrial action proceeded before the dispute was resolved. The court held that the respondents may not call for or participate in industrial action pending the determination of the dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement. The respondents were...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 158
Parties
Applicant: Profal; Respondent: National Entitled Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2001
Case Number
J4285/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents interdicted from industrial action pending resolution of the dispute. Costs awarded against respondents, not on a punitive scale.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Refusal to Bargain, Strike Interdict, Interpretation of Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreements Refusal to Bargain Strike Interdict Interpretation of Agreement

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Profal

Applicant

National Entitled Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike called by the respondent is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute regarding refusal to bargain is capable of being the subject matter of a strike.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement of the MEIBC precludes plant-level bargaining on matters governed by the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the parties related to the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement of the MEIBC, which governs wages and substantive conditions of employment. As such, the dispute must be resolved through the procedures prescribed in section 24 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant established urgency and a clear right to relief, as it would suffer irreparable harm if industrial action proceeded before the dispute was resolved. The court held that the respondents may not call for or participate in industrial action pending the determination of the dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement. The respondents were...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents interdicted from industrial action pending resolution of the dispute. Costs awarded against respondents, not on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted from calling for, engaging or participating in industrial action, pending the determination of the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent concerning the interpretation and application of the Main Agreement of the MEIBC.
  • The first respondent is directed to take all steps necessary to restrain its members from creating or participating in any industrial action, pending the determination of the dispute.