SA Post Office Ltd v Tas Appointment and Management Services CC and Others (J112/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 11; [2012] 6 BLLR 621 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1958 (LC) (13 February 2012)

SA Post Office Ltd v Tas Appointment and Management Services CC and Others (J112/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 11; [2012] 6 BLLR 621 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1958 (LC) (13 February 2012)

The court held that section 68(1) of the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to grant interdicts against unprotected strike action, but does not restrict the class of applicants to employers only. 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, intimidation, and property damage. The applicant’s locus standi was established by showing a direct and substantial interest in the matter, arising from both statutory and common law rights. The court found that the combination of the strikers’ withdrawal of...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 11
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 2012
Case Number
J112/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Interim interdict confirmed; costs awarded against the fourth to further respondents, jointly and severally.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Locus Standi, Labour Broker Employees, Interdictory Relief, Section 68 Lra
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Locus Standi Labour Broker Employees Interdictory Relief 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as the client of labour brokers, has locus standi to interdict unprotected strike action by employees who are not its own.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the striking employees amounted to unlawful interference with the applicant’s business and property rights.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to grant interdictory relief to a non-employer affected by unprotected strike action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 68(1) of the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court to grant interdicts against unprotected strike action, but does not restrict the class of applicants to employers only. 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, intimidation, and property damage. The applicant’s locus standi was established by showing a direct and substantial interest in the matter, arising from both statutory and common law rights. The court found that the combination of the strikers’ withdrawal of...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict confirmed; costs awarded against the fourth to further respondents, jointly and severally.

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.