South Africa Case Law

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) obo Members v Phala N.O and Others (JA136/23)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) obo Members v Phala N.O and Others (JA136/23) [2024] ZALAC 62; [2025] 2 BLLR 176 (LAC) (27 November 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA136/23

Judges

Molahlehi, Savage, Malindi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair labour practice dispute because the benefits claimed by the appellants were either subject to ongoing negotiations (flexi 40 contract) or, where they formed part of the pre-existing contract (such as Wooltru Medical Aid), had become impossible to reinstate. The Court found that the dispute was properly characterised as a matter of mutual interest, susceptible to industrial action, and not an unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA. The Labour Court's application of res judicata was upheld,…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Ccma Jurisdiction
• Lockout
• Res Judicata
• Reinstatement
• Benefits Under Employment Contract

Waste Carriers (Pty) Ltd v Motor Transport Workers Union and Others (C588/2022)

Waste Carriers (Pty) Ltd v Motor Transport Workers Union and Others (C588/2022) [2023] ZALCCT 15 (17 April 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C588/2022

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court ordered the union to pay the wasted costs of a postponed hearing after finding unlawful conduct during a protected strike, but declined punitive costs.

• Strike Action
• Lockout
• Picketing Rules
• Costs Award
• Collective Bargaining
• Strike-action

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

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Transem (Pty) Ltd (JS1004/16)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Transem (Pty) Ltd (JS1004/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 14 (30 January 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS1004/16

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court found that the dismissals were substantively unfair. The strike was unprotected due to the failure to issue a strike notice, but the employees attempted to comply with the Labour Relations Act and called off the strike after union intervention. The employer's conduct in issuing lockout notices and failing to issue new ultimatums created confusion and provoked further conduct by employees. The actions of the employees after the strike was called off did not amount to a furtherance of the strike but were either misconduct or a result of confusion caused by the employer. The sanction o…

Source excerpt

• Unprotected Strike
• Unfair Dismissal
• Reinstatement
• Proportionality Of Sanction
• Lockout
• Collective Bargaining Rights

Mbuyisa and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (J1366/19)

Mbuyisa and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (J1366/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 132 (11 June 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1366/19

Judge

E Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent application challenging an alleged lockout at Park Station for lack of urgency and because jurisdiction was not established.

• Urgent Application
• Lockout
• Employment Relationship
• Jurisdiction
• Misjoinder
• Urgent-application

Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers Union v Robertson Abattoir (CA12/2015)

Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers Union v Robertson Abattoir (CA12/2015) [2016] ZALAC 44; [2016] 12 BLLR 1163 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 121 (LAC) (22 August 2016)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA12/2015

Judges

Davis JA, Musi JA, Murphy AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the test for absolution from the instance is whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably, could or might find for the plaintiff. The appellants produced evidence, including testimony and correspondence, that raised a credible possibility of automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(c) of the LRA. The evidence suggested that the employer sought to compel employees to accept increased slaughter targets and overtime, and that the lockout and subsequent replacement of workers constituted dismissal for refusal to accede to…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Absolution From The Instance
• Section 187 1 C Lra
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Lockout
• Burden Of Proof

Abbatoir v CSAAWU obo Dube and Others; In Re: CSAAWU obo Dube and Others v Abbatoir (C315/2011)

Abbatoir v CSAAWU obo Dube and Others; In Re: CSAAWU obo Dube and Others v Abbatoir (C315/2011) [2014] ZALCCT 38 (31 July 2014)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C315/2011

Judge

Anton Steenkamp

The Labour Court held that nine workers had locus standi in an automatically unfair dismissal dispute based on an alleged 30 November 2010 lockout.

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Locus Standi
• Conciliation Requirement
• Lockout
• Section 187 1 C Lra
• Automatically-unfair-dismissal

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) and Others v Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd (J1524/13)

General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) and Others v Document Warehouse (Pty) Ltd (J1524/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 138 (15 July 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1524/13

Judge

R Lagrange

The Labour Court granted an interim interdict against a lockout, finding it did not comply with Chapter 4 of the Labour Relations Act and ordering the workers back to work.

• Interim Interdict
• Lockout
• Protected Action
• Urgent Application
• Interim-interdict
• Protected-action

Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa obo Members v Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd and Putco Ltd (J835/13; J 837/13)

Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa obo Members v Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd and Putco Ltd (J835/13; J 837/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 187; [2013] 8 BLLR 823 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2949 (LC) (3 May 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J835/13; J 837/13

Judge

Moshoana

Labour Court held that a lockout cannot lawfully target employees who were not on strike and had tendered services; interdict granted.

• Lockout
• Protected Strike
• Collective Bargaining
• Interdict
• Labour Relations Act
• Bargaining Council

South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v City of Johannesburg (J 325/13)

South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v City of Johannesburg (J 325/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 50 (11 April 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 325/13

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success on the shift-time and lockout issues.

• Collective Agreements
• Shift Work
• Terms And Conditions Of Employment
• Lockout Definition
• Collective-agreements
• Shift-work