Protea Coin Security [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd v SAPSWU and Others (J 385/10) [2010] ZALC 94 (24 March 2010)

Protea Coin Security [Security Services] (Pty) Ltd v SAPSWU and Others (J 385/10) [2010] ZALC 94 (24 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 an existing collective agreement. The employer was aware of the union's demands, and the failure to reiterate those demands in the strike notice did not invalidate the notice under the circumstances. Both statutory requirements for protected strike action—issuance of a certificate of outcome and expiry of the conciliation period—were satisfied. The flaws in the certificate of outcome were irrelevant, as the time for conciliation had elapsed. The applicant failed to establish grounds for confirming the...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 94
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
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2010
Case Number
J 385/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order Application Following Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Protected Strike Action, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Strike Notice Requirements, Conciliation and Arbitration, Settlement Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Strike Action Collective Agreement Interpretation Strike Notice Requirements Conciliation and Arbitration Settlement 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 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 Order Application Following Interim Interdict

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 the creation of a new right.
  3. 3 Whether the certificate of outcome and the strike notice comply with statutory requirements for protected industrial action.

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 an existing collective agreement. The employer was aware of the union's demands, and the failure to reiterate those demands in the strike notice did not invalidate the notice under the circumstances. Both statutory requirements for protected strike action—issuance of a certificate of outcome and expiry of the conciliation period—were satisfied. The flaws in the certificate of outcome were irrelevant, as the time for conciliation had elapsed. The applicant failed to establish grounds for confirming the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged; costs awarded against the applicant.

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.