Security Services Employees Organisation (SSEO) and Others v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Anothter (J510/06) [2006] ZALC 50; (2006) 27 ILJ 1217 (LC) (6 April 2006)

Security Services Employees Organisation (SSEO) and Others v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Anothter (J510/06) [2006] ZALC 50; (2006) 27 ILJ 1217 (LC) (6 April 2006)

The court found that the first respondent, SATAWU, had expressly refused to sign the handwritten amendment to the bargaining forum agreement and was not bound by the wage agreement concluded on 1 April 2006. The minutes and evidence demonstrated that SATAWU did not acquiesce to the amendment, and the procedural requirements for binding the union were not met. The attempt by the council to adopt the amendment was procedurally defective and ineffective. Clause 6 of the constitution, which allocates representation based on membership, remained operative. As a result, SATAWU and its members were not precluded from continuing their strike action, and the interim interdict was discharged.

Citation
[2006] ZALC 50
Parties
Applicant: Security Services Employees Organisation (SSEO); Applicant: South African Security Employers Association (SANSEA); Applicant: South African Intruder Detection Association (SAIDSA); Applicant: Western Cape Security Association (WECSA); Applicant: Security Industry Association Of South Africa (SIASA); Respondent: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU); Respondent: Those Persons whose Names Listed in Annexure A Hereto
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2006
Case Number
J510/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Application for Discharge of Interim Interdict
Outcome
The rule nisi is discharged. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs, including those of counsel, jointly and severally.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Collective Bargaining, Protected Strike, Collective Agreement Binding, Majority Union Rights, Procedural Formalities, Interdict Against Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Bargaining Protected Strike Collective Agreement Binding Majority Union Rights Procedural Formalities Interdict Against Strike

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Security Services Employees Organisation (SSEO)

Applicant

South African Security Employers Association (SANSEA)

Applicant

South African Intruder Detection Association (SAIDSA)

Applicant

Western Cape Security Association (WECSA)

Applicant

Security Industry Association Of South Africa (SIASA)

Applicant

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU)

Respondent

Those Persons whose Names Listed in Annexure A Hereto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Application for Discharge of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wage agreement signed on 1 April 2006 is binding on the first respondent and its members.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is precluded from striking by virtue of section 65(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment to the bargaining forum agreement was validly adopted and binding on the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent, SATAWU, had expressly refused to sign the handwritten amendment to the bargaining forum agreement and was not bound by the wage agreement concluded on 1 April 2006. The minutes and evidence demonstrated that SATAWU did not acquiesce to the amendment, and the procedural requirements for binding the union were not met. The attempt by the council to adopt the amendment was procedurally defective and ineffective. Clause 6 of the constitution, which allocates representation based on membership, remained operative. As a result, SATAWU and its members were not precluded from continuing their strike action, and the interim interdict was discharged.

Court Disposition

The rule nisi is discharged. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs, including those of counsel, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs, including those of counsel, jointly and severally.