South Africa Case Law

National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union [NEHAWU] obo Mamogale and 14 Others v Northwest Department of Community Safety and Transport Management and Another (J711/2022)

National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union [NEHAWU] obo Mamogale and 14 Others v Northwest Department of Community Safety and Transport Management and Another (J711/2022) [2022] ZALCJHB 182; (2022) 43 ILJ 2369 (LC); [2022] 11 BLLR 1041 (LC) (12 July 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J711/2022

Judge

R Lagrange

The court found that the employer's deductions from employees' salaries to recover alleged overpayments for April, May, and June 2022 were unlawful, as they did not comply with section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. There was no written consent from the employees nor any statutory or collective agreement basis for the deductions. The employer's attempt to recoup previously paid remuneration was not justified under the BCEA or the Public Service Act. However, the court held that the employer's refusal to allow employees to work outside the newly established shift hours did not a…

Source excerpt

• No Work No Pay
• Unlawful Salary Deductions
• Protected Lockout
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Urgent Interdict

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa obo Members v Plastic Convertors Association of SA Metal and Engineering Industries and Another (J554/19)

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa obo Members v Plastic Convertors Association of SA Metal and Engineering Industries and Another (J554/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 97 (14 May 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J554/19

Judge

Prinsloo

The Court held that the lock-out instituted by the Respondent was protected and complied with the Labour Relations Act and the MEIBC Constitution. The dispute between NUMSA and the Respondent was properly referred to the MEIBC for conciliation, and both parties' demands were considered as facets of a single dispute. The procedural requirements under clause 3 of the MEIBC Constitution were met, including timely MANCO meetings and conciliation efforts. The Court rejected NUMSA's argument that a stricter standard applies to lock-outs, finding no basis in the LRA or Constitutional Court authority…

Source excerpt

• Protected Lockout
• Conciliation Requirements
• Collective Bargaining
• Labour Relations Act
• Industry Dispute Procedure

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

Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood And Allied Workers Union v Lion Match Products (Pty) Ltd (J2212/14)

Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood And Allied Workers Union v Lion Match Products (Pty) Ltd (J2212/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 406 (13 October 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2212/14

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court held that the employer’s lockout was unprotected because a collective agreement already regulated the wage dispute and bound the employer.

• Collective Agreements
• Protected Lockout
• Bargaining Council
• Strike And Lockout Limitations
• Section 23 Lra
• Section 65 Lra

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14)

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 340; (2015) 36 ILJ 743 (LC) (8 September 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2082/14

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court held that the settlement agreement concluded in the MEIBC and adopted by majority vote as a collective agreement does not automatically bind NEASA and its members, who were non-signatories, unless the agreement is extended by the Minister under section 32 of the LRA or NEASA accedes to the agreement. The MEIBC constitution does not contain a provision that binds all council members to collective agreements adopted by majority vote. Therefore, NEASA and its members are not bound by the agreement and are entitled to pursue a protected lockout in support of their demands. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Protected Lockout
• Extension Of Agreements
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Of Two Counsel

SACCAWU and Others v Sebetsa (J3559/99)

SACCAWU and Others v Sebetsa (J3559/99) [2000] ZALC 39 (1 June 2000)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J3559/99

Judge

Waglay

The court found that the applicants' refusal to work overtime constituted a strike as defined by the Labour Relations Act, and that the respondent's lockout was protected under section 67(3)(d) because the strike did not comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 4. The applicants were not entitled to remuneration for the period of the protected lockout, as the lockout remained lawful until 20 June 1999, when the applicants unconditionally tendered their services. The court accepted the respondent's version of events, noting the lack of confirmatory affidavits and misleading statement…

Source excerpt

• Protected Lockout
• Strike Definition
• Remuneration During Lockout
• Costs Award

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99)

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99) [1999] ZALC 92 (8 June 1999)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J2236/99

Judge

Marcus

The court found that the respondent's lockout was not protected under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act. The lockout was in response to a go slow rather than the wage dispute referred to the CCMA, and the notice of lockout failed to specify the commencement date, rendering it defective. The requirements for a protected lockout were not met, as the statutory procedures for referral and notice were not properly followed. The applicants established a basis for interdictory relief, but their claim for payment of wages was abandoned due to lack of evidence regarding the duration of the lockou…

Source excerpt

• Protected Lockout
• Section 64 Requirements
• Notice Of Lockout
• Ccma Referral