Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (CA2/00) [2000] ZALAC 22; [2001] 1 BLLR 46 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 414 (LAC) (2 November 2000)

Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (CA2/00) [2000] ZALAC 22; [2001] 1 BLLR 46 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 414 (LAC) (2 November 2000)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction under section 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act to award compensation for loss attributable to a protected lock-out. The statutory scheme distinguishes between protected and unprotected industrial action, granting immunity and denying causes of action for losses suffered during protected strikes and lock-outs. The employment of temporary replacement labour in contravention of section 76(1)(b) does not render a protected lock-out unprotected, nor does it create a basis for compensation. The respondent's claim was essentially for lost wages during a period of protected lock-out, which the Act specifically...

Citation
[2000] ZALAC 22
Parties
Appellant: Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd; Respondent: Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2000
Case Number
CA 2/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Compensation order set aside except for Musgrave Store. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
RMM Zondo, MTR Mogoeng, J Traverso
Legal Topics
Protected Lock Out, Replacement Labour, Compensation for Loss, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Interpretation of Lra, Collective Bargaining
Labour Law Protected Lock Out Replacement Labour Compensation for Loss Jurisdiction of Labour Court Interpretation of Lra Collective Bargaining

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd

Appellant

Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss attributable to a protected lock-out?
  2. 2 Does the employment of temporary replacement labour in contravention of section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act render a protected lock-out unprotected?
  3. 3 Is the respondent entitled to compensation for lost wages during a protected lock-out?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction under section 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act to award compensation for loss attributable to a protected lock-out. The statutory scheme distinguishes between protected and unprotected industrial action, granting immunity and denying causes of action for losses suffered during protected strikes and lock-outs. The employment of temporary replacement labour in contravention of section 76(1)(b) does not render a protected lock-out unprotected, nor does it create a basis for compensation. The respondent's claim was essentially for lost wages during a period of protected lock-out, which the Act specifically...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Compensation order set aside except for Musgrave Store. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and each party is to pay its own costs of the appeal.
  • Subject to the Musgrave Store exception, the order of the court a quo is set aside.