South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (CCT 105/22) [2023] ZACC 11; (2023) 44 ILJ 1189 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 814 (CC); [2023] 7 BLLR 609 (CC); 2023 (4) SA 449 (CC) (18 April 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 105/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act does not permit an employer to use replacement labour during a lock-out once the strike has ended, whether by suspension or termination. The right to use replacement labour is confined to the duration of the strike; when employees tender their services and the strike ceases, the lock-out is no longer 'in response to a strike' and the employer may not use replacement labour. The Court rejected the distinction advanced by Trenstar between a suspended and terminated strike, finding that a strike exists only while the…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Strike Suspension
• Lock Out
• Collective Bargaining
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA) as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Ltd and Others (J398/2021)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA) as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Ltd and Others (J398/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 137 (30 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J398/2021

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the supplementary affidavit and amended notice of motion, and that no exceptional circumstances justified their admission. The facts and claims presented were known to the applicant at the time of the initial application and did not constitute new information. The wage claims for the period June to November 2020 and the 2019 13th cheque were already pending before the High Court, and pursuing the same relief in both courts amounted to lis alibi pendens and an abuse of process. Regarding urge…

Source excerpt

• Lock Out
• Urgency
• Replacement Labour
• Section 76 Lra
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Supplementary Affidavit

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21)

Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (ALPA-SA), as represented by the South African Airways Pilots Association (SAAPA), a branch of ALPA-SA obo Members v South African Airways (SOC) Limited and Others (J398/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 57; (2021) 42 ILJ 1087 (LC) (23 May 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J398/21

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

An urgent Labour Court application to stop SAA using replacement labour and trainers during a lock-out and strike was dismissed.

• Replacement Labour
• Lock Out
• Strike Action
• Collective Bargaining
• Interim Interdict
• Section 76 Lra

NUMSA obo Members v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (D 595-20)

NUMSA obo Members v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (D 595-20) [2020] ZALCD 18; [2021] 3 BLLR 281 (LC); (2021) 42 (ILJ) 555 (LC) (30 November 2020)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 595-20

Judge

Whitcher

The court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act permits the use of replacement labour during a lockout that is in response to a strike, even if the strike has been suspended and employees have tendered their services. The operative legal precondition for the use of replacement labour is the existence of a lawful lockout in response to a strike, not the ongoing existence of a strike. The suspension of the strike does not disqualify the employer from using replacement labour, as the underlying dispute remains unresolved and the lockout is a direct response to the strike. The co…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Lockout
• Strike Suspension
• Collective Bargaining
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Section 76 Lra

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

SACCAWU v Sun International (J1951/15)

SACCAWU v Sun International (J1951/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 341; (2016) 37 ILJ 215 (LC); [2016] 1 BLLR 97 (LC) (6 October 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1951/15

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court held that section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act restricts the employer's right to employ replacement labour to the period during which a protected strike is ongoing. Once the strike has ended, the employer may no longer employ replacement labour for the purposes of a lock-out, even if the lock-out continues. This interpretation is consistent with the constitutional protection of the right to strike, which should not be limited by statutory provisions unless expressly provided. The court declined to follow the Agrinet judgment and found that the respondent's continued use of r…

Source excerpt

• Replacement Labour
• Protected Strike
• Lock Out
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Constitutional Right To Strike

NACBAWU and Others v Springboc Box t/a Summit Associated Industries (J2367/06)

NACBAWU and Others v Springboc Box t/a Summit Associated Industries (J2367/06) [2010] ZALC 142; (2011) 32 ILJ 689 (LC) (1 October 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J2367/06

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court dismissed a declaratory application because the union and employees delayed 29 months in prosecuting it and failed to explain the delay adequately.

• Unreasonable Delay Rule
• Lockout
• Protected Strike
• Replacement Labour
• Declaratory Relief
• Condonation

NACBAWU and Others v Spingbox (Pty) t/a Summit Associated Industries (J2367/06)

NACBAWU and Others v Spingbox (Pty) t/a Summit Associated Industries (J2367/06) [2010] ZALCJHB 336 (1 October 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2367/06

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court dismissed a declaratory application because the applicants unreasonably delayed prosecuting it for 29 months, causing prejudice to the employer.

• Unreasonable Delay
• Declaratory Relief
• Lockout
• Replacement Labour
• Condonation
• Costs Order

Technikon South Africa v National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa (JA11/00)

Technikon South Africa v National Union of Technikon Employees of South Africa (JA11/00) [2000] ZALAC 24; [2001] 1 BLLR 58 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 427 (LAC) (9 November 2000)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA11/00

Judges

R M M Zondo, M M Joffe, J Traverso

The Labour Appeal Court held that the picketing agreement did not bar a lock-out and that temporary replacement labour was allowed in response to a strike.

• Lock Out
• Replacement Labour
• Strike Action
• Picketing Agreement
• Waiver Of Rights
• Lock-out

Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (CA2/00)

Stuttafords Department Stores Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (CA2/00) [2000] ZALAC 22; [2001] 1 BLLR 46 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 414 (LAC) (2 November 2000)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA 2/00

Judges

RMM Zondo, MTR Mogoeng, J Traverso

The Labour Appeal Court held that compensation cannot be awarded for loss attributable to a protected lock-out, and set aside the order except for the Musgrave Store.

• Protected Lock Out
• Replacement Labour
• Compensation For Loss
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Collective Bargaining