Sanqoba Security Services MP (Pty) Ltd v Motor Transport Workers Union (J1809/10) [2010] ZALC 133; (2011) 32 ILJ 730 (LC) (10 September 2010)

Sanqoba Security Services MP (Pty) Ltd v Motor Transport Workers Union (J1809/10) [2010] ZALC 133; (2011) 32 ILJ 730 (LC) (10 September 2010)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory 48-hour notice requirement under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act and did not seek condonation for non-compliance. Furthermore, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought in its founding papers. The respondent's members have a constitutional right to strike, having complied with all statutory requirements, and are not engaged in essential services as defined by the Act. The pending application before the Essential Services Committee does not limit the right to strike. The applicant failed to make out a proper case for interim relief, and there was no basis for the...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 133
Parties
Applicant: Sonqoba Security Services MP (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Motor Transport Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2010
Case Number
J1809/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Essential Services, Right to Strike, Notice Requirements, Demarcation Dispute
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Relief Essential Services Right to Strike Notice Requirements Demarcation Dispute

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonqoba Security Services MP (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Motor Transport Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief to prevent a strike by the respondent's members.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's services constitute essential services under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory 48-hour notice requirement under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act and did not seek condonation for non-compliance. Furthermore, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought in its founding papers. The respondent's members have a constitutional right to strike, having complied with all statutory requirements, and are not engaged in essential services as defined by the Act. The pending application before the Essential Services Committee does not limit the right to strike. The applicant failed to make out a proper case for interim relief, and there was no basis for the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The urgent application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.