Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 57; (2021) 42 ILJ 1087 (LC) (23 May 2021)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 57; (2021) 42 ILJ 1087 (LC) (23 May 2021)

The court found that SAA’s lock-out was in response to a strike, which under section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act permits the use of replacement labour. The individuals whose duties were to be performed by replacement labour were not initially locked out but had joined the strike. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as SAA’s conduct did not contravene the statutory prohibition. The court further held that the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, as the engagement of trainers prior to the main hearing would not render the main application nugatory or cause prejudice. The balance of convenience favoured...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 57
Parties
Applicant: The Airline Pilots’ Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots’ Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members; Respondent: South African Airways (SOC) Limited; Respondent: Les Matuson N.O.; Respondent: Siviwe Dongwana N.O.; Respondent: The Minister of Public Enterprises N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2021
Case Number
J398/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Main Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Replacement Labour, Lock Out, Strike Action, Collective Bargaining, Interim Interdict, Section 76 Lra
Labour Law Replacement Labour Lock Out Strike Action Collective Bargaining Interim Interdict Section 76 Lra

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Airline Pilots’ Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots’ Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members

Applicant

South African Airways (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Les Matuson N.O.

Respondent

Siviwe Dongwana N.O.

Respondent

The Minister of Public Enterprises N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether South African Airways (SAA) contravened section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by engaging replacement labour during a lock-out in response to a strike.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief interdicting SAA from employing replacement labour pending the main application.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for interim interdict have been satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that SAA’s lock-out was in response to a strike, which under section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act permits the use of replacement labour. The individuals whose duties were to be performed by replacement labour were not initially locked out but had joined the strike. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as SAA’s conduct did not contravene the statutory prohibition. The court further held that the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, as the engagement of trainers prior to the main hearing would not render the main application nugatory or cause prejudice. The balance of convenience favoured...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The costs of this application are to be determined in the main application.