SACCAWU and Others v Sebetsa (J3559/99) [2000] ZALC 39 (1 June 2000)

SACCAWU and Others v Sebetsa (J3559/99) [2000] ZALC 39 (1 June 2000)

The court found that the applicants' refusal to work overtime constituted a strike as defined by the Labour Relations Act, and that the respondent's lockout was protected under section 67(3)(d) because the strike did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4. The applicants were not entitled to remuneration for the period of the protected lockout, as the lockout remained lawful until 20 June 1999, when the applicants unconditionally tendered their services. The court accepted the respondent's version of events, noting the lack of confirmatory affidavits and misleading statements in the applicants' papers. Costs were awarded against the union due to its conduct in the...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 39
Parties
Applicant: SACCAWU & Others; Respondent: Rea Sebetsa
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2000
Case Number
J3559/99
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the first applicant (the union).
Judges
Waglay
Legal Topics
Protected Lockout, Strike Definition, Remuneration During Lockout, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Lockout Strike Definition Remuneration During Lockout Costs Award

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

SACCAWU & Others

Applicant

Rea Sebetsa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' refusal to work overtime constituted a strike under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's lockout was protected under section 67(3)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to remuneration for the period of the lockout.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' refusal to work overtime constituted a strike as defined by the Labour Relations Act, and that the respondent's lockout was protected under section 67(3)(d) because the strike did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4. The applicants were not entitled to remuneration for the period of the protected lockout, as the lockout remained lawful until 20 June 1999, when the applicants unconditionally tendered their services. The court accepted the respondent's version of events, noting the lack of confirmatory affidavits and misleading statements in the applicants' papers. Costs were awarded against the union due to its conduct in the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the first applicant (the union).

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first applicant is to pay the costs of the application.