South Africa Case Law

Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others (2025/085193)

Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others (2025/085193) [2025] ZALCJHB 343 (1 August 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/085193

Judge

R Daniels

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to an interdict restraining the strike action. The union's request for organisational rights did not comply with section 21(2) of the LRA, and the employer's referral to arbitration did not trigger the prohibition on strike action under section 65(1)(c). Section 65(2)(a) expressly permits strike action in pursuit of organisational rights, and the constitutional right to strike must be interpreted in the least restrictive manner. The applicants' attempt to frustrate the right to strike by hastily referring the dispute to arb…

Source excerpt

• Organisational Rights
• Protected Strike
• Interdict
• Picketing Rules
• Violence And Intimidation

Mvelatrans (Pty) Ltd t/a Bojanala Bus Services v DEMAWUSA and Others (2025/076663)

Mvelatrans (Pty) Ltd t/a Bojanala Bus Services v DEMAWUSA and Others (2025/076663) [2025] ZALCJHB 226 (20 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/076663

Judge

Daniels

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The interpretation of clause 18.3 of the Main Collective Agreement does not require that the strike notice be issued only after the expiry of the cooling-off period; rather, the notice may be issued during the cooling-off period provided the strike commences after its expiry. This interpretation aligns with the least restrictive approach to the constitutional right to strike and the objects of the LRA. The jurisdictional ruling of the Bargaining Council does not preclude protected strike action on…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Cooling Off Period
• Jurisdictional Ruling
• Strike Notice Requirements

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

Shave and Gibson Packaging (Pty) Ltd v African Meat Industry and Allied Trade Union and Another (DA21/23)

Shave and Gibson Packaging (Pty) Ltd v African Meat Industry and Allied Trade Union and Another (DA21/23) [2025] ZALAC 31; [2025] 8 BLLR 819 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1923 (LAC) (28 May 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA21/23

Judges

Savage ADJP, Van Niekerk JA, Govindjee AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the dismissal of identified employees who deliberately and persistently breached the picketing rules and the court order by picketing outside the demarcated area was substantively fair. The misconduct was flagrant, protracted, and amounted to gross insubordination, justifying dismissal. The employees were aware of the rules and the order, and their conduct undermined the authority of the court and the employer’s operational requirements. In contrast, the dismissal of unidentified employees, who were not proven to have breached the picketing rules or the order…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Picketing Rules
• Dismissal For Misconduct
• Gross Insubordination
• Progressive Discipline
• Constitutional Right To Picket

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

SA Container Depots (Pty) Ltd t/a Bidvest SACD v Sheriff: Durban Coastal and Others (D16/2025)

SA Container Depots (Pty) Ltd t/a Bidvest SACD v Sheriff: Durban Coastal and Others (D16/2025) [2025] ZALCD 3; (2025) 46 ILJ 1263 (LC) (28 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D16/2025

Judge

Allen-Yaman

The court found that the strike action undertaken by the third to further respondents was procedurally and substantively compliant with the Labour Relations Act and did not offend any of its limitations. The acts of violence, while serious and temporally linked to the strike, did not constitute a basis in law for declaring the strike unprotected, as the LRA does not provide for such a limitation. Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a causal connection between the violent acts and any of the respondents or their members. The court held that, absent such a link, interdictory relief c…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Strike Related Violence
• Picketing Rules
• Interdictory Relief
• Collective Bargaining
• Urgency In Labour Disputes

Mathane and Others v National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications and Others (2025/000072)

Mathane and Others v National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications and Others (2025/000072) [2025] ZALCJHB 6 (16 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2025/000072

Judge

M Makhura

Urgent labour court application by striking employees was struck off for lack of urgency; the court found no unlawful deductions, only lawful no-work-no-pay withholding.

• No Work No Pay
• Urgent Interdict
• Unlawful Deductions
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Protected Strike
• No-work-no-pay

Sibanye Gold Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (JR2643/21)

Sibanye Gold Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (JR2643/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 491; [2025] 3 BLLR 320 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1400 (LC) (5 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2643/21

Judge

R Daniels

The court found that the commissioner did not commit a gross irregularity by limiting evidence regarding violence during the strike, as the applicant failed to indicate its relevance to the inconsistency challenge and did not call witnesses with personal knowledge. The applicant did not present admissible evidence distinguishing the conduct of NUM members and AMCU branch leadership from that of the dismissed AMCU members. The finding of inconsistency was reasonable given the evidence, including the employer's own Dangerous Weapons Policy and correspondence indicating lesser sanctions for simi…

Source excerpt

• Inconsistency In Dismissal
• Substantive Fairness
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Dangerous Weapons Policy
• Protected Strike
• Disciplinary Sanction

Eagles Pride Hatchery (Pty) Ltd v South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Others (2024/092607)

Eagles Pride Hatchery (Pty) Ltd v South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Others (2024/092607) [2024] ZALCJHB 531 (18 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2024/092607

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop a planned strike over a bonus demand, finding the issue was not covered by the settlement agreement.

• Strike Interdict
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Procedural Compliance
• Bonus Demand
• Protected Strike
• Urgent Application

Arcelormittal South Africa v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (2024/130792)

Arcelormittal South Africa v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (2024/130792) [2024] ZALCJHB 449; [2025] 2 BLLR 195 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 595 (LC) (15 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2024/130792

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court held that NUMSA’s post-retrenchment strike was protected under section 189A(7) and section 64 of the LRA, and dismissed the interdict application.

• Protected Strike
• Collective Agreement Compliance
• Large Scale Retrenchment
• Section 189a Lra
• Interdict Proceedings
• Protected-strike