Sun International Limited and Another v SACCAWU and Others (J3455/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 71; (2018) 39 ILJ 1837 (LC) (2 March 2018)

Sun International Limited and Another v SACCAWU and Others (J3455/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 71; (2018) 39 ILJ 1837 (LC) (2 March 2018)

The court found that the introduction of the biometric time and attendance system was a work practice and did not constitute a unilateral change to employees' terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the strike was unprotected under the Labour Relations Act. The respondents' argument of mootness was rejected as the workplace leadership had not conceded the applicants' entitlement to introduce the system, and the matter remained live. The court dismissed the urgency objection, holding that urgency had already been determined when the interim order was granted and was not for reconsideration on the return day. The requirements of section 68(2) of the LRA were met. Costs were awarded...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 71
Parties
Applicant: Sun International Limited; Applicant: Afrisun Gauteng (Pty) Ltd t/a Carnival City; Respondent: SACCAWU; Respondent: The individual respondents listed in Annexure 'A' to the Notice of Motion
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2018
Case Number
J3455/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict
Outcome
The interim rule declaring the strike unprotected is confirmed and costs are awarded against the respondents.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Interim Interdict, Urgency, Mootness, Variation of Terms, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Strike Interim Interdict Urgency Mootness Variation of Terms Costs Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun International Limited

Applicant

Afrisun Gauteng (Pty) Ltd t/a Carnival City

Applicant

SACCAWU

Respondent

The individual respondents listed in Annexure 'A' to the Notice of Motion

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike over the biometric time and attendance system was protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the introduction of the biometric system constituted a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment.
  3. 3 Whether the application was urgent and whether mootness applied on the return day.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the introduction of the biometric time and attendance system was a work practice and did not constitute a unilateral change to employees' terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the strike was unprotected under the Labour Relations Act. The respondents' argument of mootness was rejected as the workplace leadership had not conceded the applicants' entitlement to introduce the system, and the matter remained live. The court dismissed the urgency objection, holding that urgency had already been determined when the interim order was granted and was not for reconsideration on the return day. The requirements of section 68(2) of the LRA were met. Costs were awarded...

Court Disposition

The interim rule declaring the strike unprotected is confirmed and costs are awarded against the respondents.

Orders

  • The rule issued on 31 December 2017 is confirmed.
  • The respondents must pay the applicants' costs, the one paying the others to be absolved.