South African Democratic Teachers Union v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education Limpopo Province and Another (4915/2017) [2017] ZALMPPHC 21 (21 August 2017)
The court found that the respondents' intended deductions from the salaries of the applicant's members were not justified in law. Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and Section 34 of the Public Service Act require either employee consent or a lawful basis for deductions, which was not present. Section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act applies only to protected strikes, and the respondents' attempt to extend its scope to unprotected strikes was rejected. The dispute regarding whether the applicant's members participated in an unprotected strike or were prevented from working by other unions was unresolved and should be addressed through disciplinary proceedings or...
- Citation
- [2017] ZALMPPHC 21
- Parties
- Applicant: South African Democratic Teachers Union; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education Limpopo Province; Respondent: Head of Department of Education Limpopo Province
- Court
- Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 August 2017
- Case Number
- 4915/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict
- Outcome
- Application granted. Interdict issued against respondents. Costs awarded to applicant.
- Judges
- Sikhwari
- Legal Topics
- Salary Deductions, Protected and Unprotected Strikes, Interdict Requirements, Basic Conditions of Employment, Public Service Act, No Work No Pay
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
South African Democratic Teachers Union
Applicant
Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education Limpopo Province
Respondent
Head of Department of Education Limpopo Province
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to deduct salaries from applicant's members for alleged participation in a strike from 22 March to 11 April 2017.
- 2 Whether the requirements for an urgent interdict have been met.
- 3 Whether the deductions comply with Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and relevant provisions of the Public Service Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents' intended deductions from the salaries of the applicant's members were not justified in law. Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and Section 34 of the Public Service Act require either employee consent or a lawful basis for deductions, which was not present. Section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act applies only to protected strikes, and the respondents' attempt to extend its scope to unprotected strikes was rejected. The dispute regarding whether the applicant's members participated in an unprotected strike or were prevented from working by other unions was unresolved and should be addressed through disciplinary proceedings or...
Court Disposition
Application granted. Interdict issued against respondents. Costs awarded to applicant.
Orders
- The first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from effecting or causing any deductions from the salaries of applicant's members employed by the Limpopo Department of Education for the no work no pay related to the strike from 22 March to 11 April 2017.
- The first and second respondents are directed to ensure that any deductions already programmed on the salaries of applicant's members are reversed prior to the payment of the salaries on 15 August 2017 and that members receive their salaries free of any deductions for the no work no pay related to the strike.
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