SA Post Office Ltd v TAS Appointment and Management Services CC and Others (J112/12) [2011] ZALCJHB 203 (13 February 2011)

SA Post Office Ltd v TAS Appointment and Management Services CC and Others (J112/12) [2011] ZALCJHB 203 (13 February 2011)

The court held that section 68(1) of the LRA confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to grant interdicts in respect of unprotected strike action, but does not restrict the class of applicants who may seek such relief. The applicant, although not the employer of the striking workers, demonstrated that its legal rights were infringed by the strike and associated unlawful conduct, including interference with its business operations, employment contracts with other employees, and property rights. The combination of the strikers' withdrawal of labour and obstruction of replacement labour materially prejudiced the applicant and breached its rights. The court found that the applicant...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 203
Parties
Applicant: SA Post Office Ltd; Respondent: TAS Appointment and Management Services CC; Respondent: N T Ngidi Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marula Staffing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Employees listed in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2011
Case Number
J112/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Confirmation of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Interim interdict confirmed; costs awarded against fourth to further respondents.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Locus Standi, Interdictory Relief, Labour Broker Employees, Section 68 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Strike Locus Standi Interdictory Relief Labour Broker Employees Section 68 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA Post Office Ltd

Applicant

TAS Appointment and Management Services CC

Respondent

N T Ngidi Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marula Staffing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Employees listed in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict; Confirmation of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as a client of labour brokers, has locus standi to interdict unprotected strike action by employees who are not its own.
  2. 2 Whether the strike action by the fourth to further respondents was unprotected under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to final interdictory relief prohibiting the strike and associated unlawful conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 68(1) of the LRA confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to grant interdicts in respect of unprotected strike action, but does not restrict the class of applicants who may seek such relief. The applicant, although not the employer of the striking workers, demonstrated that its legal rights were infringed by the strike and associated unlawful conduct, including interference with its business operations, employment contracts with other employees, and property rights. The combination of the strikers' withdrawal of labour and obstruction of replacement labour materially prejudiced the applicant and breached its rights. The court found that the applicant...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict confirmed; costs awarded against fourth to further respondents.

Orders

  • The rule issued by this court on 23 January 2012, and extended on 09 February 2012 until today, is confirmed.
  • The fourth to further respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.