SOS Protec Sure v South African Revolutionary Allied Workers Union (D955/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 262 (5 July 2017)

SOS Protec Sure v South African Revolutionary Allied Workers Union (D955/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 262 (5 July 2017)

The court found that the demand for payslips is a dispute of right, for which the union has alternative remedies under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act or the relevant Sectoral Determination, and cannot be the subject of protected strike action. The remaining demands, relating to arbitrary salary payments and unilateral changes to dates and shift rosters, were not shown to be outside the scope of protected strike action. The applicant was only entitled to partial relief, specifically an interdict against strike action based on the payslip demand, pending the respondent's withdrawal of that demand. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the applicant's papers and reserved...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 262
Parties
Applicant: SOS Protec Sure; Respondent: South African Revolutionary Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2017
Case Number
D955/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interdict Application Before Strike Commencement
Outcome
Partial relief granted: strike action interdicted only in respect of the payslip demand, pending withdrawal of that demand; costs reserved.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Strike Interdict, Unilateral Change of Employment Terms, Sectoral Determination, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Dispute of Right, Protected Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Interdict Unilateral Change of Employment Terms Sectoral Determination Basic Conditions of Employment Act Dispute of Right Protected 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOS Protec Sure

Applicant

South African Revolutionary Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interdict Application Before Strike Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike action called by the respondent is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the demand for payslips constitutes a dispute of right, rendering the strike unprotected.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has implemented unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the demand for payslips is a dispute of right, for which the union has alternative remedies under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act or the relevant Sectoral Determination, and cannot be the subject of protected strike action. The remaining demands, relating to arbitrary salary payments and unilateral changes to dates and shift rosters, were not shown to be outside the scope of protected strike action. The applicant was only entitled to partial relief, specifically an interdict against strike action based on the payslip demand, pending the respondent's withdrawal of that demand. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the applicant's papers and reserved...

Court Disposition

Partial relief granted: strike action interdicted only in respect of the payslip demand, pending withdrawal of that demand; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Non-compliance with the Labour Court Rules relating to time periods and service is condoned due to urgency.
  • Pending the return date of 25 August 2017, the respondent and its members employed by the applicant are interdicted from embarking on strike action pursuant to the strike notice issued on 3 July 2017, unless and until the demand regarding the alleged non-provision of payslips is withdrawn in writing and served on...