Transnet SOC Ltd v National Transport Movement and Others (J727/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 131 (28 March 2018)

Transnet SOC Ltd v National Transport Movement and Others (J727/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 131 (28 March 2018)

The court found that the intended strike action by NTM and its members was unprotected and unlawful under section 65 of the Labour Relations Act. The issues in dispute—permanent employment for fixed-term contract workers and equal remuneration—were already regulated by a collective agreement and arbitration award, both binding on NTM and its members. Section 65(1)(c) and 65(3)(a)(i) of the LRA preclude strike action where the issue in dispute is regulated by a collective agreement or arbitration award, even if the union is a minority and not a party to the agreement. The court held that the respondents are interdicted from participating in or encouraging the strike, as the procedural and...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 131
Parties
Applicant: Transnet SOC Ltd; Respondent: National Transport Movement; Respondent: The persons listed in 'Annexure A'
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
J727/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Interdict Application
Outcome
The application is granted. The intended strike action is declared unlawful, unprotected, and prohibited. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Protected Strike, Collective Agreement Extension, Section 65 Lra, Fixed Term Contracts, Arbitration Award, Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Strike Collective Agreement Extension Section 65 Lra Fixed Term Contracts Arbitration Award Interdict

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

Parties

Transnet SOC Ltd

Applicant

National Transport Movement

Respondent

The persons listed in 'Annexure A'

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intended strike action by NTM and its members is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the collective agreement and arbitration award preclude the respondents from striking on the issues in dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the demands regarding permanent employment and equal remuneration for fixed-term employees may be pursued through strike action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the intended strike action by NTM and its members was unprotected and unlawful under section 65 of the Labour Relations Act. The issues in dispute—permanent employment for fixed-term contract workers and equal remuneration—were already regulated by a collective agreement and arbitration award, both binding on NTM and its members. Section 65(1)(c) and 65(3)(a)(i) of the LRA preclude strike action where the issue in dispute is regulated by a collective agreement or arbitration award, even if the union is a minority and not a party to the agreement. The court held that the respondents are interdicted from participating in or encouraging the strike, as the procedural and...

Court Disposition

The application is granted. The intended strike action is declared unlawful, unprotected, and prohibited. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The intended strike action is declared unlawful, unprotected and prohibited as contemplated by section 65 of the LRA.
  • The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from encouraging its members employed by the applicant to participate in the intended strike action.