Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Labour Court

United Transport and Allied Trade Union v Metrorail (J2743/01) [2001] ZALC 100 (6 July 2001)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Applicant

Metrorail

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Labour Court

Judgment

[2001] ZALC 100

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.