Professional Transpoort Workers Union ans Others v Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd and Another (J3128/01) [2002] ZALC 35; (2002) 23 ILJ 1292 (LC); [2002] 6 BLLR 579 (LC) (11 April 2002)

Professional Transpoort Workers Union ans Others v Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd and Another (J3128/01) [2002] ZALC 35; (2002) 23 ILJ 1292 (LC); [2002] 6 BLLR 579 (LC) (11 April 2002)

The court found that the First Respondent was not entitled to unilaterally reduce the actual working hours of the Applicants from 60 to 48 per week. The employment contracts did not permit such unilateral variation, and the Sectoral Determination did not require a reduction in total working hours, only an adjustment in the ratio of ordinary to overtime hours. The Applicants were entitled to maintain a 60 hour working week, with the ordinary and overtime components adjusted to comply with statutory requirements. Any change to actual working hours required proper consultation and agreement, not unilateral action by the employer.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 35
Parties
Applicant: Professional Transport Workers Union and Others; Respondent: Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Security Services Employers Organisation
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 April 2002
Case Number
J3128/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Referral to Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the Applicants.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Sectoral Determination, Working Hours, Employment Contracts, Implied Terms, Overtime, Unilateral Variation
Labour Law Sectoral Determination Working Hours Employment Contracts Implied Terms Overtime Unilateral Variation

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

Professional Transport Workers Union and Others

Applicant

Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Security Services Employers Organisation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Referral to Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent was entitled to unilaterally reduce the actual working hours of the Applicants from 60 to 48 per week after 6 March 2001.
  2. 2 Whether an implied term existed in the Applicants' employment contracts entitling them to maintain a 60 hour working week, with the ratio of ordinary to overtime hours adjusted to comply with statutory requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the reduction in working hours constituted an unlawful variation of the Applicants' conditions of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent was not entitled to unilaterally reduce the actual working hours of the Applicants from 60 to 48 per week. The employment contracts did not permit such unilateral variation, and the Sectoral Determination did not require a reduction in total working hours, only an adjustment in the ratio of ordinary to overtime hours. The Applicants were entitled to maintain a 60 hour working week, with the ordinary and overtime components adjusted to comply with statutory requirements. Any change to actual working hours required proper consultation and agreement, not unilateral action by the employer.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the Applicants.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is ordered to roster the individual Applicants on five 12 hour shifts per week, unless otherwise agreed and for as long as this is not precluded by law.
  • The actual working week of 60 hours is to be defined as to the respective ordinary and overtime components to comply with the prevailing Sectoral Determination(s).