Vector Logistics (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Movement (NTM) and Others (J2876/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 75; (2018) 39 ILJ 1653 (LC) (6 March 2018)

Vector Logistics (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Movement (NTM) and Others (J2876/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 75; (2018) 39 ILJ 1653 (LC) (6 March 2018)

The court found that the substantive wage agreement did not expressly bind NTM members, nor was majority union status established on the papers, so section 23(1)(d) of the LRA could not be relied upon to bind non-members. However, the relationship agreement signed by NTM precluded industrial action over issues covered by any collective agreement and limited NTM's bargaining rights until it achieved majority status. The demand for payment for lunch breaks, if acceded to, would result in unlawful working hours in breach of section 14(1) of the BCEA. Furthermore, the dispute over lunch breaks is a dispute of right, capable of adjudication by the Labour Court, and thus falls within the...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 75
Parties
Applicant: Vector Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Transport Movement (NTM); Respondent: M L Kgaabi and Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2018
Case Number
J2876/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Strike Interdict
Outcome
The interim interdict against the strike is confirmed; the strike is declared unprotected.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Protected Strike, Meal Intervals, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Collective Agreements Protected Strike Meal Intervals Basic Conditions of Employment Act Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vector Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

National Transport Movement (NTM)

Respondent

M L Kgaabi and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Interim Strike Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the strike called by NTM and its members is protected under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the collective agreements in place preclude the respondents from engaging in strike action over the disputed issue.
  3. 3 Whether the demand for payment for lunch breaks is lawful under section 14(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the substantive wage agreement did not expressly bind NTM members, nor was majority union status established on the papers, so section 23(1)(d) of the LRA could not be relied upon to bind non-members. However, the relationship agreement signed by NTM precluded industrial action over issues covered by any collective agreement and limited NTM's bargaining rights until it achieved majority status. The demand for payment for lunch breaks, if acceded to, would result in unlawful working hours in breach of section 14(1) of the BCEA. Furthermore, the dispute over lunch breaks is a dispute of right, capable of adjudication by the Labour Court, and thus falls within the...

Court Disposition

The interim interdict against the strike is confirmed; the strike is declared unprotected.

Orders

  • The rule issued on 3 November 2017, and subsequently extended, is confirmed.
  • No order is made as to costs.