Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (J 1026/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 88 (18 May 2013)
The court found that the strike action by the second to further respondents was unprotected under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. Although the employees returned to work before the hearing, their conduct necessitated the application and caused the applicant to incur costs. The first respondent, the union,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 88
- Parties
- Applicant: Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa; Respondent: The employees whose names are listed in Annexure "A" attached to the notice of motion
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J 1026/13
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for interdict dismissed as moot; declaration of unprotected strike granted; costs awarded against second to further respondents.
- Judges
- R Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Unprotected Strike, Interdict, Costs Order, Urgency, Section 68 Lra
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
Respondent
The employees whose names are listed in Annexure "A" attached to the notice of motion
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the strike action by the second to further respondents was unprotected under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict given that employees returned to work before the hearing.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the strike action by the second to further respondents was unprotected under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act. Although the employees returned to work before the hearing, their conduct necessitated the application and caused the applicant to incur costs. The first respondent, the union, was not shown to have endorsed or failed to resolve the strike, so costs were not awarded against it. The urgency of the matter justified condonation of non-compliance with time limits. The declaration of the strike's unprotected status was made as an interim order pending the return date.
Court Disposition
Application for interdict dismissed as moot; declaration of unprotected strike granted; costs awarded against second to further respondents.
Orders
- The applicant’s non-compliance with the time limits in the court rules is condoned.
- It is declared that the strike embarked on by the second to further respondents on 16 May 2013 was unprotected in terms of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Not reportable
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
IN JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
case no: J 1026/13
In the matter between:
VANCHEM VANADIUM PRODUCTS (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent THE EMPLOYEES WHOSE NAMES ARE LISTED IN ANNEXURE "A" ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION Second to further Respondents
Heard: 18 May 2013
Delivered: 18 May 2013
Summary: (Unprotected strike interdict).
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE, J
Background
The application to interdict unprotected strike action is dismissed in view of the fact that it is common cause that the striking
employees have returned to work. On the papers however, it is clear that the strike was unprotected.
However, on the question of costs, the employer did issue ultimatums and endeavoured to obtain employees’ return to work, but employees only did so at the eleventh hour when the application was due to be heard.
On the papers, I am not satisfied that the first respondent endorsed the actions of its members or that it did not make an effort to resolve the strike.
Nonetheless, the employee's action made it necessary for the applicant to launch proceedings and incur costs through no fault of its own, and consequently the second to further respondents should bear the wasted costs of the application.
Order
The matter is dealt with as one of urgency, and the applicant’s non-compliance with the time limits in the court rules is condoned. By the time the matter was heard, the requirements of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 had been met.
It is declared that the strike embarked on by the second to further respondents on 16 May 2013 was unprotected in terms of section 68 to the labour relations act 66 of 1995.
The second to further respondents are jointly and severally liable for the applicants wasted costs of the application, which they must pay, those paying, the others to be absolved.
The declaration in paragraph [6] shall operate as an interim order pending the return date on 13 June 2013, on which date the
respondents called upon to show good cause why the declaration should not be made final.
_______________________
R LAGRANGE, J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT: D L Williams instructed by Cowan Harper Attorneys
FIRST RESPONDENT: X Ngako of Ruth Edmunds Attorneys