Ripple Effect 40 (Pty) Ltd t/a Mkuze Bus Services v SATAWU (D 440/09) [2009] ZALC 251 (25 June 2009)

Ripple Effect 40 (Pty) Ltd t/a Mkuze Bus Services v SATAWU (D 440/09) [2009] ZALC 251 (25 June 2009)

The applicant failed to establish any factual or legal basis for the review and setting aside of the certificate of outcome issued by the commissioner. The two versions presented by the applicant in the founding and supplementary affidavits were mutually destructive, and the union's version prevailed. The requirements for a protected strike under section 64(1) of the LRA were met, as 30 days had elapsed since the referral of the dispute to the CCMA and proper notice was given. The applicant's submissions regarding notification to an employers' organisation and the timing of the certificate were without merit. The interim interdict (rule nisi) was not warranted and was set aside.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 251
Parties
Applicant: Ripple Effect 40 (Pty) Ltd t/a Mkuze Bus Service; Respondent: SATAWU; Respondent: Commissioner J Vermaak; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2009
Case Number
D 440/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Discharge Interim Interdict
Outcome
The rule nisi issued on 15 June 2009 is set aside. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Certificate of Outcome, Conciliation Procedure, Urgent Interdict, Section 64 Lra
Labour Law Protected Strike Certificate of Outcome Conciliation Procedure Urgent Interdict Section 64 Lra

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ripple Effect 40 (Pty) Ltd t/a Mkuze Bus Service

Applicant

SATAWU

Respondent

Commissioner J Vermaak

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Discharge Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdict against strike action should be confirmed.
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of outcome issued by the commissioner should be reviewed and set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a protected strike under section 64(1) of the LRA were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any factual or legal basis for the review and setting aside of the certificate of outcome issued by the commissioner. The two versions presented by the applicant in the founding and supplementary affidavits were mutually destructive, and the union's version prevailed. The requirements for a protected strike under section 64(1) of the LRA were met, as 30 days had elapsed since the referral of the dispute to the CCMA and proper notice was given. The applicant's submissions regarding notification to an employers' organisation and the timing of the certificate were without merit. The interim interdict (rule nisi) was not warranted and was set aside.

Court Disposition

The rule nisi issued on 15 June 2009 is set aside. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 15 June 2009 is set aside.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of these proceedings.