Unitrans Supply Chain Solution (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J 1174/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 215; (2014) 35 ILJ 265 (LC) (13 August 2013)

Unitrans Supply Chain Solution (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J 1174/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 215; (2014) 35 ILJ 265 (LC) (13 August 2013)

The court found that the changes implemented by the applicant to the briefing and debriefing processes and questionnaires were operational adjustments necessitated by the renewed service agreement with Air Liquide. These changes did not constitute a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment but were merely alterations to work practices, which the employer was entitled to make for sound business and operational reasons. The respondents failed to demonstrate any contractual entitlement that was infringed. Furthermore, the right to strike under Section 64(4) of the LRA is an interim measure that lapses once conciliation is concluded. As the conciliation process had been...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 215
Parties
Applicant: Unitrans Supply Chain Solution (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SATAWU; Respondent: Individual Respondents
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2013
Case Number
J 1174/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date on Rule Nisi; Confirmation of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed; strike declared unprotected; no order as to costs.
Judges
Snyman AJ
Legal Topics
Strike Action, Unilateral Change of Employment Conditions, Section 64 Lra, Interdict, Work Practices Vs Employment Conditions
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Action Unilateral Change of Employment Conditions Section 64 Lra Interdict Work Practices Vs Employment Conditions

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unitrans Supply Chain Solution (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SATAWU

Respondent

Individual Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date on Rule Nisi; Confirmation of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the changes to briefing and debriefing processes and questionnaires constituted a unilateral change to conditions of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed strike action by the respondents was protected under Section 64(4) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the right to strike under Section 64(4) had lapsed after conciliation was concluded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the changes implemented by the applicant to the briefing and debriefing processes and questionnaires were operational adjustments necessitated by the renewed service agreement with Air Liquide. These changes did not constitute a unilateral change to the terms and conditions of employment but were merely alterations to work practices, which the employer was entitled to make for sound business and operational reasons. The respondents failed to demonstrate any contractual entitlement that was infringed. Furthermore, the right to strike under Section 64(4) of the LRA is an interim measure that lapses once conciliation is concluded. As the conciliation process had been...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed; strike declared unprotected; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The proposed strike action by the respondents is declared unprotected.
  • The individual respondents are interdicted and restrained from embarking upon the proposed strike action.