Technikon South Africa v National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa (JA11/00) [2000] ZALAC 24; [2001] 1 BLLR 58 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 427 (LAC) (9 November 2000)

Technikon South Africa v National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa (JA11/00) [2000] ZALAC 24; [2001] 1 BLLR 58 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 427 (LAC) (9 November 2000)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the picketing agreement did not preclude the appellant from instituting a lock-out, nor did it amount to a waiver of the right to lock-out. The lock-out notice was not ambiguous or invalid, as the requirements of section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act were met. The Act does not distinguish between offensive and defensive lock-outs for the purposes of section 64(1); both are permitted if statutory requirements are satisfied. Section 76(1)(b) allows employment of temporary replacement labour during a lock-out in response to a strike, regardless of whether the strike is protected or unprotected. The respondent's argument to read 'unprotected' into section...

Citation
[2000] ZALAC 24
Parties
Appellant: Technikon South Africa; Respondent: National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2000
Case Number
JA11/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Labour Court's order set aside. Application dismissed. No order as to costs in the court a quo. Costs awarded to appellant on appeal.
Judges
R M M Zondo, M M Joffe, J Traverso
Legal Topics
Lock Out, Replacement Labour, Strike Action, Picketing Agreement, Waiver of Rights
Labour Law Civil Procedure Lock Out Replacement Labour Strike Action Picketing Agreement Waiver of Rights

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Technikon South Africa

Appellant

National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was precluded by the picketing agreement from instituting a lock-out.
  2. 2 Whether the lock-out was protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to employ temporary replacement labour during the lock-out.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the picketing agreement did not preclude the appellant from instituting a lock-out, nor did it amount to a waiver of the right to lock-out. The lock-out notice was not ambiguous or invalid, as the requirements of section 64(1) of the Labour Relations Act were met. The Act does not distinguish between offensive and defensive lock-outs for the purposes of section 64(1); both are permitted if statutory requirements are satisfied. Section 76(1)(b) allows employment of temporary replacement labour during a lock-out in response to a strike, regardless of whether the strike is protected or unprotected. The respondent's argument to read 'unprotected' into section...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Labour Court's order set aside. Application dismissed. No order as to costs in the court a quo. Costs awarded to appellant on appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.