Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Transport and Allies Workers Union v Scopeful 21 (Pty) Ltd t/a Maluti Bus Service (JS688 -2016) [2024] ZALCJHB 59 (26 January 2024)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and ordering the applicants to pay costs.
NEHAWU v Minister For The Public Service And Administration and Others (JA19/2023) [2023] ZALAC 7; [2023] 6 BLLR 487 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1207 (LAC) (13 March 2023)
The Labour Appeal Court found that NEHAWU's strike notice was unlawfully broad, including essential services employees and entities outside the bargaining unit, in breach of section 65(1)(d)(i) of the LRA. NEHAWU failed to take adequate steps to exclude these categories, resulting in exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm to the employer and the public. However, the Court held that the right to strike for non-essential service employees should not be eroded by a blanket interdict. The section 18 order was warranted only against NEHAWU members employed in essential services and at SASS…
Source excerpt
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others v Mahle Behr SA (Pty) Ltd and Another; National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others v Foskor (Pty) Ltd and Another (DA08/2019; DA09/2019) [2020] ZALAC 30; (2020) 41 ILJ 2093 (LAC) (8 June 2020)
The Labour Appeal Court held that section 19 of the Labour Relations Amendment Act of 2018 does not impose an immediate obligation on NUMSA to conduct a secret ballot before engaging in a strike. The obligation only arises after the Registrar has consulted with the union's national office bearers and issued a directive specifying the amendment and the period for compliance. There was no evidence that such a directive had been issued to NUMSA. The Labour Court erred in assuming the existence of a directive and in interpreting section 19 as imposing a peremptory requirement in the absence of th…
Source excerpt
SACCAWU v Sun International (J1951/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 341; (2016) 37 ILJ 215 (LC); [2016] 1 BLLR 97 (LC) (6 October 2015)
The court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act restricts the employer's right to employ replacement labour to the period during which a protected strike is ongoing. Once the strike has ended, the employer may no longer employ replacement labour for the purposes of a lock-out, even if the lock-out continues. This interpretation is consistent with the constitutional protection of the right to strike, which should not be limited by statutory provisions unless expressly provided. The court declined to follow the Agrinet judgment and found that the respondent's continued use of r…
Source excerpt
COWUSA obo Individual Applicants v CCMA and Others (JR3124/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 6; (2013) 34 ILJ 1966 (LC) (23 January 2013)
The court found that the CCMA commissioner failed to provide a record of proceedings or reasons for the determination of picketing rules, which is a reviewable irregularity. The absence of a record made it impossible for the court to assess whether the commissioner considered the relevant statutory and constitutional factors, including the unique workplace circumstances and the rights to strike and picket. Given the urgency and ongoing nature of the strike, and the impossibility of reconstructing the record, the court held that the appropriate remedy was to remit the matter to the CCMA for a…
Source excerpt
Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (JR2203/05) [2005] ZALC 100; [2006] 7 BLLR 713 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1234 (LC) (8 December 2005)
Labour Court refused to confirm a broad interdict against alleged strike misconduct, citing inadequate identification of respondents and the need to protect lawful picketing.
Marapula and Others v Consteen (Pty) Limited (J1086/98) [1999] ZALC 63 (23 April 1999)
The Labour Court upheld the dismissal of employees who took part in an unprotected strike, finding the ultimatum fair and the employer’s conduct not unjustified.
Explore more
