Protea Coin Group [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd v SAPSWU and Others (J385/10) [2010] ZALCJHB 80 (23 March 2010)

Protea Coin Group [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd v SAPSWU and Others (J385/10) [2010] ZALCJHB 80 (23 March 2010)

The court found that the dispute between the parties concerned the revision of the living out allowance, which is a matter of mutual interest and not the interpretation or application of the existing collective agreement. The requirements for protected strike action under section 64(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALCJHB 80
Parties
Applicant: Protea Coin Group [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SAPSWU; Respondent: Members of 1st Respondent listed in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2010
Case Number
J385/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Protected Strike Action, Collective Agreement, Strike Notice Requirements, Conciliation and Arbitration
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Strike Action Collective Agreement Strike Notice Requirements Conciliation and Arbitration

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Protea Coin Group [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SAPSWU

Respondent

Members of 1st Respondent listed in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planned strike action by the respondents is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute concerns the interpretation and application of a collective agreement or a matter of mutual interest.
  3. 3 Whether the certificate of outcome issued by the CCMA is valid and affects the right to strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the parties concerned the revision of the living out allowance, which is a matter of mutual interest and not the interpretation or application of the existing collective agreement. The requirements for protected strike action under section 64(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act were met, as both a certificate of outcome was issued and the conciliation period had elapsed. The certificate’s validity was deemed irrelevant since the statutory time period had passed. The strike notice, although not reiterating the demands, was sufficient in this case because the employer was aware of the nature of the dispute and the demands being pursued. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged.

Orders

  • The rule issued on 22 February 2010 and extended on 11 March 2010 is discharged.
  • The applicant must pay the respondents’ costs of opposing the application.