South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22) [2023] ZACC 11; (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 814 (CC); [2023] 7 BLLR 609 (CC); 2023 (4) SA 449 (CC) (18 April 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 105/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act does not permit an employer to use replacement labour during a lock-out once the strike has ended, whether by suspension or termination. The right to use replacement labour is confined to the duration of the strike; when employees tender their services and the strike ceases, the lock-out is no longer 'in response to a strike' and the employer may not use replacement labour. The Court rejected the distinction advanced by Trenstar between a suspended and terminated strike, finding that a strike exists only while the…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Strike Suspension
• Lock Out
• Collective Bargaining
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Southern Sun Hotels Interests (PTY) LTD v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (JA136/2021)

Southern Sun Hotels Interests (PTY) LTD v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (JA136/2021) [2022] ZALAC 120; (2023) 44 ILJ 505 (LAC) (15 November 2022)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA136/2021

Judges

Sutherland, Kathree-Setiloane, Tokota

The Labour Appeal Court held that Southern Sun’s lock-out was unprotected because it sought to vary wages fixed by a binding collective agreement.

• Lock Out
• Collective Agreement
• Remuneration Dispute
• Protected Strike
• Arbitration Rights
• Variation Of Contract

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) obo Members v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (J887/21)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) obo Members v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (J887/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 259 (26 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J887/21

Judge

M Baloyi

The Labour Court held that a lock-out over employees’ rejection of a wage rollback was unprotected because the dispute was regulated by a binding collective agreement.

• Lock Out
• Collective Agreement
• Protected Strike
• Section 65 Limitations
• Remuneration Dispute
• Lock-out

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA) as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Ltd and Others (J398/2021)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA) as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Ltd and Others (J398/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 137 (30 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J398/2021

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the supplementary affidavit and amended notice of motion, and that no exceptional circumstances justified their admission. The facts and claims presented were known to the applicant at the time of the initial application and did not constitute new information. The wage claims for the period June to November 2020 and the 2019 13th cheque were already pending before the High Court, and pursuing the same relief in both courts amounted to lis alibi pendens and an abuse of process. Regarding urge…

Source excerpt

• Lock Out
• Urgency
• Replacement Labour
• Section 76 Lra
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Supplementary Affidavit

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 57; (2021) 42 ILJ 1087 (LC) (23 May 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J398/21

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

An urgent Labour Court application to stop SAA using replacement labour and trainers during a lock-out and strike was dismissed.

• Replacement Labour
• Lock Out
• Strike Action
• Collective Bargaining
• Interim Interdict
• Section 76 Lra

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa v South African Airways SOC Limited and Others (J1507/2020)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa v South African Airways SOC Limited and Others (J1507/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 261; (2021) 42 ILJ 1087 (LC) (29 December 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1507/2020

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that a lock-out does not constitute a suspension of employment contracts as contemplated by section 136(2A) of the Companies Act, but rather a breach of contract for which the LRA provides indemnity if the lock-out is protected. Section 136(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act permits changes to terms and conditions of employment in accordance with labour laws, and the LRA prevails in case of conflict. The absence of a physical workplace does not preclude a lock-out, as the concept of 'workplace' under the LRA is functionally defined. Selective exclusion of employees in a lock-out no…

Source excerpt

• Lock Out
• Business Rescue
• Collective Bargaining
• Protected Industrial Action
• Employment Contract Suspension

National Association of South African Workers obo Members v Kings Hire CC (J2290/19)

National Association of South African Workers obo Members v Kings Hire CC (J2290/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 345; (2020) 41 ILJ 685 (LC); [2020] 3 BLLR 312 (LC) (29 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2290/19

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent interdict over a lock-out tied to a 13th cheque dispute, finding no urgency, no clear right, and proper notice.

• Lock Out
• Urgency In Labour Disputes
• Collective Bargaining
• Strike Notice
• Section 64 Lra
• No Work No Pay

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Bumatech Calcium Aluminates (J 303/16)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Bumatech Calcium Aluminates (J 303/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 364 (9 November 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 303/16

Judge

Z Lallie

The Labour Court held that the employer’s lock-out was lawful because NUMSA did not unconditionally accept the shift-change demand and the dispute remained unresolved.

• Lock Out
• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Protected Strike
• Section 189 Consultation
• Interdict Against Temporary Workers
• Lock-out

National Union of Metalworkers of SA and Others v Bumatech Calcium Aluminates (J1808/16)

National Union of Metalworkers of SA and Others v Bumatech Calcium Aluminates (J1808/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 329; (2016) 37 ILJ 2862 (LC) (26 August 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1808/16

Judge

S Snyman

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8. There was an inordinate delay in bringing the application, with the events giving rise to the dispute dating back several months and no adequate explanation for the delay provided. The urgency was self-created, and the applicants did not act at the first available opportunity. Furthermore, the principle of lis pendens applied because a previous application concerning the same dispute and parties was still pending before the court. The applicants attempted to circumvent the normal process by bringing a secon…

Source excerpt

• Urgency In Labour Court
• Lis Pendens
• Lock Out
• Unlawful Lock Out
• Costs In Labour Court

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