SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 241 (10 August 2023)

SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 241 (10 August 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief. The evidence showed that the employment contracts expired by effluxion of time, and there was no sufficient case for novation or unlawful termination in contractual terms. The union's reliance on section 77(3) of the BCEA...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 241
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo Katlego Lehole and Others; Respondent: Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Amalgamated and Integrated Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2023
Case Number
J 1062/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Agency Shop Agreement, Termination of Fixed Term Contract, Prima Facie Right, Unlawful Termination, Section 77 Bcea, Interim Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Agency Shop Agreement Termination of Fixed Term Contract Prima Facie Right Unlawful Termination Section 77 Bcea Interim Interdict

Source-derived case record

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

SAMWU obo Katlego Lehole and Others

Applicant

Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

South African Amalgamated and Integrated Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicants' contracts was unlawful in terms of section 77(3) of the BCEA.
  2. 2 Whether the closed/agency shop agreement between the first and second respondents was invalid and used unlawfully to terminate employment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established a prima facie right to interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief. The evidence showed that the employment contracts expired by effluxion of time, and there was no sufficient case for novation or unlawful termination in contractual terms. The union's reliance on section 77(3) of the BCEA was misplaced, as it does not confer substantive rights regarding termination. The dispute was essentially about a refusal to re-employ rather than termination, and the appropriate remedy would have been under the unfair dismissal provisions of the LRA, which the applicants did not invoke. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.