South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14)

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 340; (2015) 36 ILJ 743 (LC) (8 September 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2082/14

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court held that the settlement agreement concluded in the MEIBC and adopted by majority vote as a collective agreement does not automatically bind NEASA and its members, who were non-signatories, unless the agreement is extended by the Minister under section 32 of the LRA or NEASA accedes to the agreement. The MEIBC constitution does not contain a provision that binds all council members to collective agreements adopted by majority vote. Therefore, NEASA and its members are not bound by the agreement and are entitled to pursue a protected lockout in support of their demands. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Protected Lockout
• Extension Of Agreements
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Of Two Counsel

South African Local Government Association v Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Others (JA46/2012)

South African Local Government Association v Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union and Others (JA46/2012) [2014] ZALAC 135 (4 March 2014)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA46/2012

Judges

Waglay, C J Musi, Mokgoatlheng

The Labour Appeal Court held that no binding collective agreement had been reached on 20 April 2010 and that rectification was unavailable.

• Collective Agreements
• Rectification Of Contracts
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Custom And Practice
• Binding Effect Of Agreements
• Collective-agreements

South African Clothing Textile Workers Union (SACTWU) and Others v Yarntex (Pty) Ltd t/a Bertrand Group (PA07/10)

South African Clothing Textile Workers Union (SACTWU) and Others v Yarntex (Pty) Ltd t/a Bertrand Group (PA07/10) [2013] ZALAC 6; (2013) 34 ILJ 1931 (LAC) (28 February 2013)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA07/10

Judges

Sandi, Mlambo, Mocumie

The Labour Appeal Court held that a wage strike at plant level was unprotected under the NTBC constitution and the Labour Relations Act, upholding dismissal.

• Unprotected Strike
• Collective Agreement
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Dismissal
• Bargaining Council Constitution

Bravo Group Sleep Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v CEPPWAWU and Others (J1398/08)

Bravo Group Sleep Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v CEPPWAWU and Others (J1398/08) [2008] ZALCJHB 89 (12 September 2008)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1398/08

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the constitution of the bargaining council does not provide for automatic binding of collective agreements on non-signatory parties. There was no evidence that the adoption of the collective agreement complied with the procedural requirements of the council's constitution, such as a motion and voting by show of hands. The collective agreement is not binding on CEPPWAWU and its members until the Minister of Labour extends it to non-parties. Consequently, the strike by CEPPWAWU and its members was not unlawful or unprotected under section 65(3) of the Labour Relations Act.…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Right To Strike
• Final Interdict
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Extension Of Agreements
• Unprotected Strike

Bravo Group Sleep Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v CCEPAAWU and Others (J1398/08)

Bravo Group Sleep Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v CCEPAAWU and Others (J1398/08) [2008] ZALC 123; (2009) 30 ILJ 1090 (LC) ; [2009] 2 BLLR 114 (LC) (12 September 2008)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J1398/08

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the constitution of the bargaining council does not provide for the automatic binding of collective agreements on parties who are not signatories. There was no evidence that the procedures required by the council's constitution for adopting a collective agreement by majority vote were followed. As a result, CCEPAWU and its members were not bound by the collective agreement until the Minister of Labour extended its operation to non-parties. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to an interdict against the strike, as the limitation on the right to strike in secti…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Right To Strike
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Final Interdict
• Extension Of Agreements

Enforce Guarding v National Security (D664/2001)

Enforce Guarding v National Security (D664/2001) [2001] ZALC 79; [2001] 10 BLLR 1122 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 2457 (LC) (30 May 2001)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D664/2001

Judge

Pillay

The Labour Court held that the overtime and shift dispute was one of mutual interest, not barred by the collective agreement, and refused the interdict.

• Collective Agreements
• Strike Prohibition
• Overtime Entitlement
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Collective-agreements
• Strike-action