SACCAWU and Others v Mandate Meal Management (J363/2002) [2002] ZALC 11 (6 February 2002)

SACCAWU and Others v Mandate Meal Management (J363/2002) [2002] ZALC 11 (6 February 2002)

The court held that the lock-out declared by the employer was lawful and protected under the Labour Relations Act, as the employer had given proper notice and excluded the employees from the workplace upon their tender to return, pending compliance with the employer's demand to sign an agreement. The union's argument that the lock-out was a nullity was rejected, as the lock-out only became operative when the employees tendered their services. The application for a rule nisi and interdict was dismissed.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 11
Parties
Applicant: SACCAWU and Others; Respondent: Mandate Meal Management
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2002
Case Number
J363/2002
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rule Nisi and Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
AA Landman
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Lock Out, No Work No Pay, Interdict, Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Protected Strike Lock Out No Work No Pay Interdict Labour Relations Act

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SACCAWU and Others

Applicant

Mandate Meal Management

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rule Nisi and Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lock-out declared by the employer against striking workers was lawful and protected.
  2. 2 Whether the employer was entitled to refuse the striking workers' return to work pending signature of an agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the union's application for a rule nisi and interdict should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the lock-out declared by the employer was lawful and protected under the Labour Relations Act, as the employer had given proper notice and excluded the employees from the workplace upon their tender to return, pending compliance with the employer's demand to sign an agreement. The union's argument that the lock-out was a nullity was rejected, as the lock-out only became operative when the employees tendered their services. The application for a rule nisi and interdict was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.