United Transport and Allied Trade Union v Metrorail (J2743/01) [2001] ZALC 100 (6 July 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 100
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E. Revelas
- Case number
- J2743/01
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E. Revelas
- Case number
- J2743/01
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent's distribution of the undertaking letter did not constitute a breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence did not establish that the respondent committed any unlawful act by handing out the letters or requiring signatures. The court held that such conduct was a legitimate part of industrial relations during a strike and did not amount to intimidation, discrimination, or victimization. The application for an interdict was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
United Transport and Allied Trade Union
ApplicantMetrorail
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent's distribution of the undertaking letter to union members constitutes a breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
- 02
Whether requiring union members to sign the undertaking amounts to unlawful discrimination or victimization.
- 03
Whether the respondent's conduct justifies the granting of an interdict.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the respondent's distribution of the undertaking letter and requirement for union members to sign it infringed upon their rights under Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant contended that these actions constituted intimidation, discrimination, and victimization of union members, and sought urgent interdictory relief to restrain the respondent from continuing such conduct and to withdraw any signed undertakings.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the distribution of the undertaking letter was legitimate and did not breach the Labour Relations Act. It argued that the letter merely provided union members with the option not to participate in the strike and clarified that signing the undertaking did not require resignation from the union. The respondent asserted that its actions were part of lawful industrial relations strategy and did not amount to intimidation or unlawful conduct.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
An employer faced with a protected strike is not precluded from resorting to measures to prevent the strike from taking place, provided such action does not constitute intimidation or a breach of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
It is the union's duty to ensure that a strike called by it continues, and not that of the courts.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent's distribution of the undertaking letter did not constitute a breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence did not establish that the respondent committed any unlawful act by handing out the letters or requiring signatures. The court held that such conduct was a legitimate part of industrial relations during a strike and did not amount to intimidation, discrimination, or victimization. The application for an interdict was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Obiter and limits
- If the strike does not proceed as a result of the letters, so be it; the employer's actions remain lawful unless they cross into intimidation or breach of statutory provisions.
- The courts are not responsible for ensuring the continuation of a strike called by a union; that responsibility lies with the union itself.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
JUDGMENT
3
Sneller Verbatim/MB
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J2743/01
2001-07-06
In the matter between
UNITED TRANSPORT AND ALLIED TRADE UNION Applicant
and
METRORAIL Respondent
________________
J
U D G M E N T
EX
TEMPORE
REVELAS J:
The applicants seek the following urgent relief:
1.1. Interdicting and restraining the respondent from distributing to any of the applicant's members a notice entitled "undertaking not to participate in UTATO strike particulars whereof are set out in the annexed founding affidavit hereinafter referred to as "the undertaking";
2.2. Interdicting and restraining the respondent from requiring applicant's members to sign the undertaking.
2.3. Interdicting and directing the respondent to withdraw the undertaking from those of the applicant's members who have already signed; 2.4. Interdicting and restraining the respondent from discriminating against and/or victimizing the applicant's members. The applicants also seek costs against the respondent. The document (or undertaking), which lies at the heart of the applicant's complaint, is a standard letter of undertaking to be signed by all UTATO members who are about to commence on a strike today. The relevant part of this letter reads as follows: "Should they sign and avail themselves for work as required by management for the duration of the strike, they will not be locked out. A lock out notice has been faxed to all the partners. Contact the department secretary if you have not received your copies. Please display the notice immediately. The undertaking form is to be used for those who do not wish to strike. Note: The individual need not resign from the Union and you may not under any circumstances encourage people to resign from the Union. Copies of this undertaking must be kept in a safe place and a copy is to be faxed to the HR manager's office. Please keep a summary and a check against the list of Utato members which HR will be providing. I will be meeting with the strike committee at 14h00 whereafter there will be further contact." The standard undertaking reads as follows:
2.3. Interdicting and directing the respondent to withdraw the undertaking from those of the applicant's members who have already signed;
2.4. Interdicting and restraining the respondent from discriminating against and/or victimizing the applicant's members.
The applicants also seek costs against the respondent.
The document (or undertaking), which lies at the heart of the
applicant's complaint, is a standard letter of undertaking to be signed by all UTATO members who are about to commence on a strike today. The relevant part of this letter reads as follows:
"Should they sign and avail themselves for work as required by management for the duration of the strike, they will not be locked out. A lock out notice has been faxed to all the partners. Contact the department secretary if you have not received your copies. Please display the notice immediately.
The undertaking form is to be used for those who do not wish to strike. Note: The individual need not resign from the Union and you may not under any circumstances encourage people to resign from the Union. Copies of this undertaking must be kept in a safe place and a copy is to be faxed to the HR manager's office. Please keep a summary and a check against the list of Utato members which HR will be providing.
I will be meeting with the strike committee at 14h00 whereafter there will be further contact."
The standard undertaking reads as follows:
"I, ..... employee number ...... hereby commit not to participate in a strike called by Utato in Metrorail. By giving this undertaking I am aware that I will be making myself available to work as and when required by the company." The members of the Union are also advised in this letter, that they need not resign from the union in light of the aforesaid and that it should not be so construed.
The question to be decided is whether these letters constitute a breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. In my view they do not. On the evidence presented by the respondent and on the papers of the applicant, there is no case made out to demonstrate that the respondent committed with some unlawful act in handing out these letters.
In my view, it is perfectly legitimate to send such letters. It forms part of the general power play which takes place during a strike. I am unpersuaded by the submissions that if these letters are continued to be given to members the strike will not take place. If the strike does not proceed, so be it. An employer faced with a protected strike is not precluded from resorting to measures to prevent the strike from taking place, provided such action does not constitute, intimidation or a breach of the provisions of the Act.
It is the Union's duty to ensure that a strike called by it continues, and not that of the courts. In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs. _____ E. Revelas
"I, ..... employee number ...... hereby commit not to participate in a strike called by Utato in Metrorail. By giving this undertaking I am aware that I will be making myself available to work as and when required by the company."
The members of the Union are also advised in this letter, that they need not resign from the union in light of the aforesaid and that it should not be so construed.
The question to be decided is whether these letters constitute a breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. In my view they do not. On the evidence presented by the respondent and on the papers of the applicant, there is no case made out to demonstrate that the respondent committed with some unlawful act in handing out these letters.
In my view, it is perfectly legitimate to send such letters. It forms part of the general power play which takes place during a strike. I am unpersuaded by the submissions that if these letters are continued to be given to members the strike will not take place. If the strike does not proceed, so be it. An employer faced with a protected strike is not precluded from resorting to measures to prevent the strike from taking place, provided such action does not constitute, intimidation or a breach of the provisions of the Act.
It is the Union's duty to ensure that a strike called by it continues, and not that of the courts. In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.
_____
E. Revelas
3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.