Security Services Employers' Organisation (SSEO) and Others v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Others (J453/06 , J509/06) [2007] ZALC 23; (2007) 28 ILJ 1134 (LC) (4 April 2007)

Security Services Employers' Organisation (SSEO) and Others v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Others (J453/06 , J509/06) [2007] ZALC 23; (2007) 28 ILJ 1134 (LC) (4 April 2007)

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the specific requirement to display the court orders and their translations at all offices, as ordered. The respondents did not provide any substantive explanation or evidence of reasonable steps taken to ensure compliance, relying instead on vague and unsubstantiated denials. The court held that this failure constituted wilful and mala fide non-compliance, satisfying the requirements for contempt. However, the court considered the ongoing employment relationship and the absence of direct evidence linking the respondents' officials to the violence, and declined to impose a punitive costs order. The contempt application was found...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 23
Parties
Applicant: Security Services Employers' Organisation (SSEO); Applicant: South African National Security Employers Association (SENSEA); Applicant: South African Intruder Detection Services 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: National Security and Unqualified Workers Union (NASUWU); Respondent: Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU); Respondent: South African Private Security Workers Union (SAPSWU); Respondent: Security Officers Civil Rights and Allied Workers Union (SOCRAWU); Respondent: Democratic Union Security Workers Organisation (DUSWO); Respondent: South African Cleaning Security and Allied Workers Union (SACSAAWU); Respondent: United Private Sector Workers Union (UPSWU); Respondent: Officers Forum (SANSOF); Respondent: PRWU; Respondent: Food Cleaning and Security Workers Union (FOCSWU); Respondent: National Association of Security Workers Union; Respondent: Those persons whose names are listed in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2006
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2007
Case Number
J453/06 , J509/06
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment After Consolidated Contempt and Costs Applications
Outcome
The first respondent was found in contempt of court and ordered to pay a suspended fine. The identified additional respondents were sentenced to suspended imprisonment for contempt. No costs order was made against the first respondent.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Protected Strike, Interim Interdict, Costs Order, Wilfulness and Mala Fides
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Protected Strike Interim Interdict Costs Order Wilfulness and Mala Fides

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Security Services Employers' Organisation (SSEO)

Applicant

South African National Security Employers Association (SENSEA)

Applicant

South African Intruder Detection Services 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

National Security and Unqualified Workers Union (NASUWU)

Respondent

Professional Transport Workers Union (PTWU)

Respondent

South African Private Security Workers Union (SAPSWU)

Respondent

Security Officers Civil Rights and Allied Workers Union (SOCRAWU)

Respondent

Democratic Union Security Workers Organisation (DUSWO)

Respondent

South African Cleaning Security and Allied Workers Union (SACSAAWU)

Respondent

United Private Sector Workers Union (UPSWU)

Respondent

Officers Forum (SANSOF)

Respondent

PRWU

Respondent

Food Cleaning and Security Workers Union (FOCSWU)

Respondent

National Association of Security Workers Union

Respondent

Those persons whose names are listed in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion dated 20 April 2006

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment After Consolidated Contempt and Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of the Labour Court's orders issued during the protected strike.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents took reasonable steps to comply with the terms of the court orders.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be made against the respondents after the discharge of the rule nisi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the specific requirement to display the court orders and their translations at all offices, as ordered. The respondents did not provide any substantive explanation or evidence of reasonable steps taken to ensure compliance, relying instead on vague and unsubstantiated denials. The court held that this failure constituted wilful and mala fide non-compliance, satisfying the requirements for contempt. However, the court considered the ongoing employment relationship and the absence of direct evidence linking the respondents' officials to the violence, and declined to impose a punitive costs order. The contempt application was found...

Court Disposition

The first respondent was found in contempt of court and ordered to pay a suspended fine. The identified additional respondents were sentenced to suspended imprisonment for contempt. No costs order was made against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is ordered to pay the amount of R500,000.00 for contempt of the terms of the Court Orders, suspended for five years on condition of no further contempt.
  • The listed Second and additional Respondents are sentenced to six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years on condition of no further contempt of this Court's Orders.