Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2023] ZALCJHB 57

Anglo American Coal South Africa v CCMA and Others (JR 2115/20)

Anglo American Coal South Africa v CCMA and Others (JR 2115/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 57; (2023) 44 ILJ 1500 (LC) (13 March 2023)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR 2115/20
Judge
Nindi

The Labour Court found that the commissioner’s decision to grant organisational rights to the Coalition was reasonable and justified under section 21(8C) of the LRA. The requirements of section 21(8C)(b) are disjunctive, allowing rights to be granted if a union represents either a significant interest or a substantial number of employees. The Coalition’s historical presence and stable membership supported the finding that it represented a significant interest in the workplace, even though its representivity was below the threshold set in the recognition agreement. The commissioner correctly c…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Review Of Arbitration Award
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Majoritarianism
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2020] ZALAC 20

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (CA6/2019)

Municipal and Allied Trade Union of South Africa (MATUSA) v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (CA6/2019) [2020] ZALAC 20; (2020) 41 (ILJ) 1918 (LAC); [2020] 9 BLLR 896 (LAC) (28 May 2020)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
CA6/2019
Judges
JR Murphy, M Phatshoane, DM Davis

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 21(8C) of the LRA does not empower a commissioner to override agency shop agreements concluded under section 25. Agency shop agreements lawfully require minority union members to pay agency fees in addition to their own union subscription fees, as agency fees and membership fees arise from different legal sources and serve different purposes. The deduction of both fees is consistent with the Constitution and ILO recommendations, as agency shop agreements are designed to address the problem of free riders and fund collective bargaining efforts. The Cou…

Source excerpt

  • Agency Shop Agreement
  • Organisational Rights
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Constitutional Interpretation
  • Minority Union Rights
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2018] ZALCCT 34

Municipal and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (C 671/18)

Municipal and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Central Karoo District Municipality and Others (C 671/18) [2018] ZALCCT 34; [2019] 2 BLLR 159 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 386 (LC) (6 November 2018)

Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C 671/18
Judge
Tlhotlhalemaje

The court held that section 21(8C) of the Labour Relations Act enables minority unions to obtain organisational rights but does not exempt their members from the consequences of agency shop agreements entered into by majority unions. The legislative scheme of majoritarianism under the LRA supports the extension of collective agreements, including agency shop agreements, to all employees, even those who are members of minority unions. The agency shop fee and union subscription serve different purposes, and the double deduction is a consequence of the member's choice to join a minority union th…

Source excerpt

  • Agency Shop Agreement
  • Organisational Rights
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Double Deduction
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Freedom Of Association
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALAC 36

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015) [2017] ZALAC 36 (31 May 2017)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA87/2015
Judges
Ndlovu, Coppin, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 20 of the Labour Relations Act expressly allows the conclusion of collective agreements regulating organisational rights, even where a section 18(1) threshold agreement exists. The agreed threshold establishes a minimum for automatic entitlement to rights, but does not bar the employer from bargaining with minority unions for such rights. The majoritarian system must operate fairly, permitting minority unions to co-exist and represent their members. The Labour Court erred in finding the collective agreement with SACOSWU invalid; the threshold agreemen…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Majoritarianism
  • Collective Agreements
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Labour Relations Act
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALAC 30

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015) [2017] ZALAC 30; [2017] 9 BLLR 905 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2009 (LAC) (31 May 2017)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA87/2015
Judges
Ndlovu, Coppin, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 20 of the Labour Relations Act expressly allows for the conclusion of collective agreements regulating organisational rights, even where a section 18(1) threshold agreement exists. The existence of a threshold agreement does not bar an employer from bargaining with a minority union or concluding a collective agreement with it. The threshold agreement obliges the employer to confer rights on unions that meet the threshold, but does not prevent the employer from granting rights to unions that have not met the threshold. The principle of majoritarianism…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Majoritarianism
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Labour Relations Act
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2013] ZALCJHB 272

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
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2009] ZALCJHB 78

Tawusa and Alliance Comprising of Stemcwu v Anglo Platinum Ltd (J109/09)

Tawusa and Alliance Comprising of Stemcwu v Anglo Platinum Ltd (J109/09) [2009] ZALCJHB 78 (23 January 2009)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J109/09
Judge
Van Niekerk

The court held that the respondent was entitled to terminate the collective agreement by giving reasonable notice, as provided by section 23(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the agreement could be lawfully terminated and the applicants had an alternative remedy through the CCMA. The failure to join majority unions, who were directly affected, was fatal to the application. Granting the interdict would amount to compelling the respondent to continue a collective bargaining relationship against its will, which is not suppor…

Source excerpt

  • Collective Agreements
  • Termination Of Organisational Rights
  • Reasonable Notice
  • Minority Union Rights
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2009] ZALC 10

TAWUSA & Alliance Comprising of STEMCWU v Anglo Platinum Limited (J109/09)

TAWUSA & Alliance Comprising of STEMCWU v Anglo Platinum Limited (J109/09) [2009] ZALC 10; [2009] 5 BLLR 506 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 2142 (LC) (23 January 2009)

Court
Labour Court
Case number
J109/09
Judge
Van Niekerk

The court held that the respondent was entitled to terminate the collective agreement by giving reasonable notice in terms of section 23(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the agreement could be lawfully terminated and the applicants had an alternative remedy through the CCMA. The failure to join majority unions, who were interested parties, rendered the application fatally defective. Granting the interdict would amount to unwarranted interference in the collective bargaining relationship, contrary to the voluntarist appro…

Source excerpt

  • Collective Agreements
  • Organisational Rights
  • Termination Of Agreement
  • Urgent Interdict
  • Minority Union Rights
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.