South Africa Case Law

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees Civil Servants Union (MECSU) and Others (2025/082833)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Municipal Employees Civil Servants Union (MECSU) and Others (2025/082833) [2025] ZALCJHB 230 (20 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/082833

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that while MECSU complied with the procedural requirements for a protected strike, the substantive limitations of the Labour Relations Act prohibit essential service workers, such as Metro police officers, from striking. The demands in the strike notice of 27 May 2025 pertained specifically to essential service employees and must be resolved through arbitration, not industrial action. The court held that the intended strike and any conduct in furtherance of such strike, including picketing, relating to Metro police officers, is interdicted. Regarding the demand for permanent e…

Source excerpt

• Essential Services
• Protected Strike
• Strike Interdict
• Contempt Of Court
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Arbitration Vs Strike

Sasol South Africa Limited v Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Another (2025/029924)

Sasol South Africa Limited v Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Another (2025/029924) [2025] ZALCJHB 113 (18 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/029924

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court confirmed an interdict against a strike over Sasol’s 4-shift system, finding no live dispute existed when the strike notice was issued.

• Protected Strike
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Shift Allowance
• Strike Interdict
• Certificate Of Outcome
• Rights Vs Interests

Khumalo and Others v Gauteng Department of Economic Development (JS89/18)

Khumalo and Others v Gauteng Department of Economic Development (JS89/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 317 (20 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS89/18

Judge

Norton

The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a remuneration dispute, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no jurisdictional basis.

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Remuneration Claim
• Educational Practitioner Post
• Labour-law

Jabu and Others v Gauteng Department Of Economic Development (JS89/18)

Jabu and Others v Gauteng Department Of Economic Development (JS89/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 93 (1 March 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS89/18

Judge

Norton

The Labour Court dismissed a claim for retrospective salary increases, holding that the dispute was one of mutual interest outside its jurisdiction.

• Remuneration Dispute
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Contract Of Employment
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Salary Differentiation

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR853/18)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR853/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 272 (4 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR853/18

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court found that the dispute concerned a mutual interest arising from a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment, specifically the reduction of the nightshift allowance. Despite procedural irregularities in the referral, the matter was properly conciliated and arbitrated under section 74(4) of the LRA, as the respondent employees were essential services workers precluded from striking. The evidence established that the previous nightshift allowance rate had become an entrenched benefit through long-standing practice, and the employer's unilateral reduction was impermissible…

Source excerpt

• Essential Services
• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Collective Bargaining
• Nightshift Allowance

J & L Lining (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (J 3424 / 18)

J & L Lining (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (J 3424 / 18) [2018] ZALCJHB 409; (2019) 40 ILJ 1289 (LC) (10 December 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 3424 / 18

Judge

Sean Snyman

The court found that the applicant, as a member of NEASA, was not bound by the MEIBC main agreement or the industry settlement agreement, as NEASA had refused to be a party and the agreement had not been extended to non-parties. NUMSA had complied with all procedural requirements under section 64(1) of the LRA and the MEIBC constitution. The real issue in dispute was a demand for a wage increase, which is a matter of mutual interest and not subject to enforcement of an existing agreement. The applicant could not rely on the centralized bargaining prohibition in the main agreement, as it was n…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Collective Bargaining
• Bargaining Council Dispute Resolution
• Main Agreement Extension
• Procedural Requirements For Strike
• Mutual Interest Dispute

Public Servants Association and Others v Department of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015)

Public Servants Association and Others v Department of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 102 (15 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR657/2015

Judge

Myburgh

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal after confirming that a dispute over working hours was a matter of mutual interest and that the bargaining council had jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Conciliation Procedure
• Labour-law
• Bargaining-council-jurisdiction
• Mutual-interest-dispute

Public Servants Association and Others v National Union of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015)

Public Servants Association and Others v National Union of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015) [2015] ZALCJHB 326 (22 September 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR657/2015

Judge

Myburgh, AJ

The commissioner erred in finding that the dispute over changes to working hours did not constitute a matter of mutual interest. The Labour Relations Act does not narrowly define matters of mutual interest, and case law confirms that disputes concerning work practices and management prerogative, such as working hours, fall within the employment relationship and are thus matters of mutual interest. The statutory prerogative to regulate working hours does not preclude such disputes from being subject to collective bargaining or conciliation. The bargaining council therefore has jurisdiction to…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Working Hours Regulation
• Management Prerogative
• Conciliation Process

Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Another (J2184/14)

Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Another (J2184/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 474 (2 December 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2184/14

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

Labour Court held that NUMSA’s demands were not a mutual-interest dispute and that any strike in support of them would be unprotected and unlawful.

• Unprotected Strike
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Interdict
• Collective Action
• Unprotected-strike

South African Municipal Workers Union v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 409/12)

South African Municipal Workers Union v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 409/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 261 (8 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR409/12

Judge

Masipa

The court found that the dispute referred by the applicant was a matter of mutual interest, as it concerned the creation of new rights through a proposed Job Evaluation Agreement. The main collective agreement does not exhaustively limit bargaining topics, and neither the Municipal Systems Act nor the collective agreement prohibits bargaining on job evaluation. The advisory award issued by the second respondent was, in substance, a jurisdictional ruling and not merely advisory. The second respondent failed to adequately consider the facts and mischaracterised the nature of the dispute. Accord…

Source excerpt

• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Collective Bargaining
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Advisory Award Review
• Municipal Systems Act
• Main Collective Agreement Interpretation