Steel Mining And Commercial Workers Union and Others v S P Cleaning Services CC (J1405/97) [1999] ZALC 164 (18 November 1999)

Steel Mining And Commercial Workers Union and Others v S P Cleaning Services CC (J1405/97) [1999] ZALC 164 (18 November 1999)

The court found that the applicants' conduct amounted to a strike as defined in the Labour Relations Act, being a concerted refusal to work to remedy a grievance. The strike was neither lawful nor protected, as the required procedures under Section 64 of the Act were not followed. The respondent issued three...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 164
Parties
Applicant: Steel Mining And Commercial Workers Union; Applicant: Hendrik Moela and Others; Respondent: S P Cleaning Services CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 1999
Case Number
J1405/97
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claims dismissed. Dismissal found to be fair and justified.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Strike Action, Procedural Fairness, Ultimatum Procedure
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Strike Action Procedural Fairness Ultimatum Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steel Mining And Commercial Workers Union

Applicant

Hendrik Moela and Others

Applicant

S P Cleaning Services CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' conduct constituted an unlawful and unprotected strike under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent followed a fair procedure in issuing ultimatums and consulting the union before dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' conduct amounted to a strike as defined in the Labour Relations Act, being a concerted refusal to work to remedy a grievance. The strike was neither lawful nor protected, as the required procedures under Section 64 of the Act were not followed. The respondent issued three ultimatums, consulted the union, and provided opportunities for the employees to reconsider their position. The applicants refused to comply with the ultimatums and did not tender their services. The employer was left with no alternative but to dismiss the employees to meet its contractual obligations. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair. The applicants' claims...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims dismissed. Dismissal found to be fair and justified.

Orders

  • The applicants' claims are dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the respondent's costs, except for Agnes Khwababa.