South Africa Case Law

UTATU SARWHU and Others v Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd and Another (J1931/2013)

UTATU SARWHU and Others v Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd and Another (J1931/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 331 (11 November 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1931/2013

Judge

Snyman

The existence of directly conflicting judgments on similar facts demonstrates that reasonable judges may differ on the outcome, justifying the granting of leave to appeal. The interpretation and application of the Moloto judgment to employer lock-outs is a novel and complex issue that requires resolution by the Labour Appeal Court. Additionally, the question of what constitutes a 'demand' for the purposes of strike action or lock-out in collective bargaining is unsettled, with conflicting judgments. In light of these factors, the applicants have shown reasonable prospects that another court m…

Source excerpt

• Unprotected Lockout
• Collective Bargaining
• Remuneration During Lockout
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Conflicting Judgments

National Union of Mineworkers v Black Mountain- A division of Anglo Operations Ltd (C 380/2007)

National Union of Mineworkers v Black Mountain- A division of Anglo Operations Ltd (C 380/2007) [2007] ZALC 207; (2007) 28 ILJ 2796 (LC) (2 August 2007)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C 380/2007

Judge

Basson

The Labour Court struck off an urgent application challenging a lock-out, finding the union had created its own urgency by delaying its filing.

• Lock Out
• Urgency Requirements
• Protected Strike
• Condonation
• Remuneration During Lockout
• Labour-law

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