South Africa Case Law

Industrial Oleo Chemical Products v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (DA05/2023)

Industrial Oleo Chemical Products v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (DA05/2023) [2024] ZALAC 53; [2025] 1 BLLR 1 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 328 (LAC) (23 October 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA05/2023

Judges

Savage, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Mlambo

The Labour Appeal Court held that, notwithstanding the facilitation process in large-scale retrenchments under section 189A, a referral to conciliation is mandatory before a valid referral to the Labour Court can take place. The Court relied on the Constitutional Court's decision in Intervalve, which established that conciliation is an indispensable jurisdictional precondition for adjudication of unfair dismissal disputes. The Court rejected the Labour Court's interpretation and the reasoning in Bell Equipment, finding that facilitation and conciliation are functionally distinct and that the…

Source excerpt

• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Section 189a Consultation
• Conciliation Precondition
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Large Scale Retrenchment
• Interpretation Of Lra

NTEU obo Moeketsi v CCMA and Others (JR1157/20)

NTEU obo Moeketsi v CCMA and Others (JR1157/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 226 (16 August 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1157/20

Judge

G.N. Moshoana

The court held that the applicant required condonation because the referral to the CCMA was made two years after becoming aware of the act or omission constituting the alleged unfair labour practice. The 90-day period for referral under section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the LRA runs from the date of the act or omission or the date the employee becomes aware of it, not from the exhaustion of internal remedies. The applicant's reliance on the completion of the internal grievance process to delay referral was a misinterpretation of the law. The commissioner exercised her discretion correctly in refusing…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion
• Jurisdiction
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Internal Remedies

NUMSA obo Members v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (D 595-20)

NUMSA obo Members v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (D 595-20) [2020] ZALCD 18; [2021] 3 BLLR 281 (LC); (2021) 42 (ILJ) 555 (LC) (30 November 2020)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 595-20

Judge

Whitcher

The court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act permits the use of replacement labour during a lockout that is in response to a strike, even if the strike has been suspended and employees have tendered their services. The operative legal precondition for the use of replacement labour is the existence of a lawful lockout in response to a strike, not the ongoing existence of a strike. The suspension of the strike does not disqualify the employer from using replacement labour, as the underlying dispute remains unresolved and the lockout is a direct response to the strike. The co…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Lockout
• Strike Suspension
• Collective Bargaining
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Section 76 Lra

Sun International Limited v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (JA45/16)

Sun International Limited v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (JA45/16) [2017] ZALAC 24; (2017) 38 ILJ 1799 (LAC); [2017] 8 BLLR 776 (LAC) (3 May 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA45/16

Judges

Davis, Jappie, Kathree-Setiloane

The Court found that the dispute between the parties had been resolved by agreement and that there was no longer a live issue regarding the use of replacement labour under section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The facts indicated that neither party contemplated further strike or lockout action, and no evidence suggested an ongoing dispute. The Court distinguished the present case from Mawethu Civils, where a live employment relationship and contested terms justified hearing the appeal. The Court held that the present matter was fact-driven and did not warrant an advisory opinion on fu…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Protected Lockout
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Mootness
• Urgent Interdict

Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd v Magagula and Others (82258/2015)

Verulam Sawmills (Pty) Ltd v Magagula and Others (82258/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 108 (30 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82258/2015

Judge

M W Msimeki

The High Court granted Verulam Sawmills leave to appeal to the SCA, finding conflicting judgments and an important question of law under section 17 of the Superior Court Act.

• Leave To Appeal
• Conflicting Judgments
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Costs In Appeal
• Leave-to-appeal
• Conflicting-judgments

SACCAWU v Sun International (J1951/15)

SACCAWU v Sun International (J1951/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 341; (2016) 37 ILJ 215 (LC); [2016] 1 BLLR 97 (LC) (6 October 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1951/15

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

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

• Replacement Labour
• Protected Strike
• Lock Out
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Constitutional Right To Strike

SAMWU v SALGBC and Others (JA 56/13)

SAMWU v SALGBC and Others (JA 56/13) [2015] ZALAC 117 (24 June 2015)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 56/13

Judges

Waglay, Dlodlo, Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 191(5) of the LRA does not give an employee an election to refer a dispute to arbitration after the lapse of 30 days or to await the issue of a certificate of outcome. The right to refer accrues upon the first occurrence of either event, and the referral must be made within a reasonable time, interpreted as 90 days from the lapse of 30 days or the issue of the certificate, whichever occurs first. The appellant acquired the right to refer the dispute to arbitration on expiry of the 30-day period but failed to do so within 90 days and did not seek condo…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Condonation For Late Referral
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Conciliation And Arbitration
• Reasonable Time For Referral

South African Municipal Workers Union obo Manentza v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (JA 56/13)

South African Municipal Workers Union obo Manentza v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (JA 56/13) [2015] ZALAC 26; [2015] 9 BLLR 894 (LAC); (2015) 36 ILJ 2581 (LAC) (24 June 2015)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 56/13

Judges

Waglay, Dlodlo, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 191(5) of the LRA does not grant an employee the right to elect between referring a dispute to arbitration after the expiry of 30 days or awaiting the issue of a certificate of outcome. The right to refer accrues upon the first occurrence of either event. The issuance of a certificate after the lapse of 30 days is not a pre-requisite for referral, nor does it cure a late referral. The appellant acquired the right to refer the dispute to arbitration upon the expiry of 30 days from the Bargaining Council's receipt of the referral, but failed to do so wi…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Condonation For Late Referral
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Conciliation And Arbitration
• Reasonable Time For Referral

Transnet SOC Limited v National Transport Movement and Others (J2301/13)

Transnet SOC Limited v National Transport Movement and Others (J2301/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 272; [2014] 1 BLLR 98 (LC); (2014) 35 ILJ 1418 (LC) (21 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2301/13

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that the collective agreement between Transnet and other unions, which sets a 30% threshold for recognition, does not bind the first respondent, as it is not a party to the agreement and there is no evidence that the agreement was extended to non-party unions under section 23(1)(d) of the LRA. Section 65 of the LRA only prohibits strikes by parties bound by a collective agreement regulating the issue in dispute. The first respondent and its members are not so bound and are therefore entitled to strike for organisational rights. Section 18 of the LRA does not preclude minority u…

Source excerpt

• Organisational Rights
• Collective Agreement Thresholds
• Right To Strike
• Minority Union Rights
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Costs In Labour Disputes

United Peoples' Union of South Africa (UPUSA) v CCMA and Others (J984/10)

United Peoples' Union of South Africa (UPUSA) v CCMA and Others (J984/10) [2010] ZALCJHB 344 (21 October 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J984/10

Judge

Molahlehi

The court held that the Labour Relations Act does not provide for the automatic suspension of the Registrar's decision to deregister a trade union upon the lodging of an appeal. The common law principle that an appeal suspends a judgment does not apply to administrative decisions under the LRA unless expressly provided. The court emphasized that administrative decisions remain valid until set aside and that unions seeking suspension must approach the court and demonstrate prejudice and prospects of success. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conc…

Source excerpt

• Deregistration Of Trade Union
• Suspension Of Administrative Decision
• Leave To Appeal
• Freedom Of Association
• Interpretation Of Lra