Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (D68/12) [2012] ZALCD 20 (15 February 2012)
The court held that the collective agreement, in writing, applied only to employees in the truck and radial tyre department. Its oral extension to other employees did not meet statutory requirements for a collective agreement and thus did not alter their terms and conditions of employment. For those covered by the agreement, clause 12 expressly allowed the applicant to discontinue or modify the shift system after consultation to meet operational requirements. The applicant had complied with its consultation obligations. Therefore, the change to shift patterns did not constitute a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment for employees outside the truck and radial tyre...
- Citation
- [2012] ZALCD 20
- Parties
- Applicant: Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA); Respondent: Employees employed at Apollo Tyres SA (Pty) Ltd (Durban Factory)
- Court
- Labour Court Durban
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2012
- Case Number
- D68/12
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Declarator
- Outcome
- Application granted. The applicant's change to shift patterns was lawful and respondents are interdicted from striking until compliance with section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
- Judges
- D H Gush
- Legal Topics
- Collective Agreement, Unilateral Change to Terms, Managerial Prerogative, Operational Requirements, Strike Interdict, Section 64 Lra
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA)
Respondent
Employees employed at Apollo Tyres SA (Pty) Ltd (Durban Factory)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Declarator
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the proposed change to shift patterns constitute a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment.
- 2 Is the regulation of shift patterns a matter of managerial prerogative or a contractual term.
- 3 Does the collective agreement, as orally extended, bind employees outside the truck and radial tyre department.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the collective agreement, in writing, applied only to employees in the truck and radial tyre department. Its oral extension to other employees did not meet statutory requirements for a collective agreement and thus did not alter their terms and conditions of employment. For those covered by the agreement, clause 12 expressly allowed the applicant to discontinue or modify the shift system after consultation to meet operational requirements. The applicant had complied with its consultation obligations. Therefore, the change to shift patterns did not constitute a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment for employees outside the truck and radial tyre...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The applicant's change to shift patterns was lawful and respondents are interdicted from striking until compliance with section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.
Orders
- The new shift patterns set out in annexure A do not constitute a change to the terms and conditions of those respondents not employed in the truck and radial tyre department.
- For respondents employed in the truck and radial tyre department, the change to shift patterns was in accordance with the collective agreement regulating their terms and conditions of employment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment