South Africa Case Law

Universal Transport and Allied Workers Union v Tlhomphanang Business Enterprises t/a TNG Security Services (2024-044666)

Universal Transport and Allied Workers Union v Tlhomphanang Business Enterprises t/a TNG Security Services (2024-044666) [2025] ZAGPPHC 768 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-044666

Judge

J Vorster

The High Court upheld an exception in part, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded the specific statutory non-compliance said to make a labour agreement void.

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Closed Shop Agreement
• Pleading Vagueness
• Undue Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Vague-and-embarrassing

SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023)

SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 241 (10 August 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1062/2023

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief. The evidence showed that the employment contracts expired by effluxion of time, and there was no sufficient case for novation or unlawful termination in contractual terms. The union's reliance on section 77(3) of the BCEA was misplaced, as it does not confer substantive rights regarding termination. The dispute was essentially about a refusal to re-employ rather than termination, and the appropriate remedy would have been under the unfair dismissal provisions of the LRA, which the applicants did not…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Termination Of Fixed Term Contract
• Prima Facie Right
• Unlawful Termination
• Section 77 Bcea
• Interim Interdict

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v UASA and Others (D 2128/18)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v UASA and Others (D 2128/18) [2022] ZALCD 15; (2022) 43 ILJ 1817 (LC) (9 May 2022)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 2128/18

Judge

Whitcher

The court held that the plain meaning of section 25 of the LRA is clear: agency shop agreements bind members of minority unions, including those who are parties to the bargaining council. There is no statutory exception for unions who are bargaining council agents. The arbitrator's award was not subject to review, as it correctly interpreted the law. The agency shop agreement complies with section 25 in wording, content, and format, and is therefore valid. The court declined to rewrite the statutory provisions under the guise of purposive interpretation, noting that any perceived unfairness s…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Collective Bargaining
• Interpretation Of Collective Agreements
• Section 25 Lra
• Arbitration Review

Communication Workers Union v Sentech SOC Limited and Another (J 215/20)

Communication Workers Union v Sentech SOC Limited and Another (J 215/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 240 (22 October 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 215/20

Judge

S B Nhlapo

The court held that the Agency Shop Agreement between CWU and Sentech was concluded for an indefinite period and did not provide otherwise regarding termination. Sentech was entitled to terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice under section 23(4) of the LRA, and the three months’ notice given was reasonable. The court found that clause 4 of the CWU Recognition Agreement, which purported to grant CWU sole collective bargaining rights, was invalid as it unlawfully restricted the rights of minority unions, contrary to section 23 of the Constitution and section 20 of the LRA. The Organ…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Organisational Rights
• Collective Bargaining
• Thresholds Of Representativeness
• Termination Of Collective Agreement

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (CA6/2019)

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (CA6/2019) [2020] ZALAC 20; (2020) 41 (ILJ) 1918 (LAC); [2020] 9 BLLR 896 (LAC) (28 May 2020)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA6/2019

Judges

JR Murphy, M Phatshoane, DM Davis

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 21(8C) of the LRA does not empower a commissioner to override agency shop agreements concluded under section 25. Agency shop agreements lawfully require minority union members to pay agency fees in addition to their own union subscription fees, as agency fees and membership fees arise from different legal sources and serve different purposes. The deduction of both fees is consistent with the Constitution and ILO recommendations, as agency shop agreements are designed to address the problem of free riders and fund collective bargaining efforts. The Cou…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Organisational Rights
• Collective Bargaining
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Minority Union Rights

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Transnet (SOC) Limited and Others (J3319/17)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Transnet (SOC) Limited and Others (J3319/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 331; [2020] 3 BLLR 327 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 1977 (LC) (29 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3319/17

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that, despite the initial agency shop agreement referencing 'bargaining unit' instead of 'workplace', the objective facts demonstrated that SATAWU and UNTU represented the majority of employees in both the bargaining unit and the workplace. The error in terminology did not result in substantive non-compliance with section 25 of the Labour Relations Act. The subsequent amendment to the agreement clarified the wording but did not admit invalidity, as the statutory requirements were met in substance. The court distinguished the facts from Greathead, noting that the error was not…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Collective Bargaining
• Statutory Compliance
• Rectification Of Agreement
• Union Representativity

Solidarity obo Members employed in motor industry v Automobile Manufacturers Employers Organisation (AMEO) and Others (JA11/17)

Solidarity obo Members employed in motor industry v Automobile Manufacturers Employers Organisation (AMEO) and Others (JA11/17) [2019] ZALAC 63; [2020] 2 BLLR 142 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 419 (LAC) (16 October 2019)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA11/17

Judges

Coppin, Murphy, Kathree-Setiloane

The original agency shop agreement did not comply with section 25(3) of the Labour Relations Act and was unenforceable. However, the parties lawfully amended the collective agreement both retrospectively and prospectively to cure the defects. The retrospective amendment constituted a new collective agreement, valid from 1 July 2013, which rendered the prior deductions lawful. There is no statutory prohibition against retrospective operation of collective agreements, and the parties are entitled to determine the operative period. Rectification is not applicable to statutory non-compliance, but…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Collective Bargaining
• Retrospective Amendment
• Statutory Compliance
• Rectification
• Unlawful Deduction

UASA and Others v Western Platinum Limited and Others (J1338/19)

UASA and Others v Western Platinum Limited and Others (J1338/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 158; (2019) 40 ILJ 2405 (LC); [2019] 11 BLLR 1283 (LC) (24 June 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1338/19

Judge

Whitcher

The court found that the agency shop agreement between AMCU and Lonmin did not expressly provide that employees who are not members of AMCU are not compelled to become members of AMCU, as required by section 25(3)(a) of the LRA. The agreement only exempted employees who are not members of any trade union, failing to include those who are members of minority unions. Relying on the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Greathead v SACCAWU, the court held that strict compliance with statutory formalities is required for agency shop agreements, and substantial compliance is insufficient. As the a…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Statutory Formality
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Freedom Of Association
• Refund Of Deductions

Municipal and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (C 671/18)

Municipal and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (C 671/18) [2018] ZALCCT 34; [2019] 2 BLLR 159 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 386 (LC) (6 November 2018)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 671/18

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court held that section 21(8C) of the Labour Relations Act enables minority unions to obtain organisational rights but does not exempt their members from the consequences of agency shop agreements entered into by majority unions. The legislative scheme of majoritarianism under the LRA supports the extension of collective agreements, including agency shop agreements, to all employees, even those who are members of minority unions. The agency shop fee and union subscription serve different purposes, and the double deduction is a consequence of the member's choice to join a minority union th…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Organisational Rights
• Collective Bargaining
• Double Deduction
• Minority Union Rights
• Freedom Of Association

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Crouse NO and Another (C261/15)

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Crouse NO and Another (C261/15) [2015] ZALCCT 56; [2015] 11 BLLR 1172 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 3122 (LC) (1 September 2015)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C261/15

Judge

A J Steenkamp

The court found that MATUSA was formed by employees who adopted a constitution, elected leadership, and submitted membership forms, satisfying the requirements for a genuine trade union under the LRA and relevant guidelines. The inability to collect subscriptions prior to registration was due to agency shop agreements, not a lack of genuineness. The Registrar's decision was based on factual errors and misapplication of the guidelines. Regarding IMATU's objection, the court held that the names and acronyms of MATUSA and IMATU are sufficiently distinct in pronunciation, history, and context, an…

Source excerpt

• Trade Union Registration
• Genuineness Of Trade Union
• Freedom Of Association
• Agency Shop Agreement
• Name Confusion In Registration