South Africa Case Law

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Anglogold Ashanti Limited t/a Anglogold Ashanti (JA43/2019)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Anglogold Ashanti Limited t/a Anglogold Ashanti (JA43/2019) [2020] ZALAC 45; (2020) 41 ILJ 2763 (LAC) (1 September 2020)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA43/2019

Judges

Davis JA, Coppin JA, Kathree-Setiloane AJA

The Labour Appeal Court dismissed as moot an appeal about secondary strike legality, holding there was no need to revisit settled law on s 66(2) of the LRA.

• Secondary Strike
• Mootness
• Proportionality Test
• Interpretation Of Labour Relations Act
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Costs Award

Freshmark (PTY) LTD v Commissioner Mothibe N.O (JR2063/18)

Freshmark (PTY) LTD v Commissioner Mothibe N.O (JR2063/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 265 (8 July 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2063/18

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court dismissed Freshmark’s review of a CCMA jurisdictional ruling, finding the challenge moot and no just and equitable basis to intervene.

• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Review Of Arbitration Ruling
• Secondary Strike
• Unfair Dismissal
• Section 158 1b Lra
• Labour-law

MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v NUMSA and Others (P99/14)

MSC Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v NUMSA and Others (P99/14) [2014] ZALCPE 6 (21 May 2014)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P99/14

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court struck an urgent interdict application over a secondary strike because the applicants’ letter was not proper notice under section 68(2) of the LRA.

• Secondary Strike
• Notice Of Application
• Urgent Interdict
• Condonation
• Costs Order
• Secondary-strike

Transnet SOC Ltd v SATAWU (J 2697/12)

Transnet SOC Ltd v SATAWU (J 2697/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 107; (2013) 34 ILJ 1281 (LC) (12 October 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 2697/12

Judge

A Steenkamp

The Court found that the secondary strike notice issued by SATAWU did not fully comply with the collective agreement, as it failed to set out sufficient grounds for the reasonableness of the strike in relation to its effect on the primary employers. However, the Court declined to prohibit the strike solely on this basis, noting that the parties had imposed more stringent requirements than the Act but that the deficiency was not fatal. On the substantive requirements of section 66(2)(c), the Court held that the nature and extent of the proposed secondary strike would have a major and dispropor…

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Collective Agreement Compliance
• Urgent Interdict
• Proportionality Test
• Strike Notice Requirements
• Violence During Strike

Chemical Energy Papers Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union and Others v CTP Ltd (JS 215/2010)

Chemical Energy Papers Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union and Others v CTP Ltd (JS 215/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 48 (7 June 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 215/2010

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court granted condonation for a late statement of case in an unfair dismissal dispute arising from strike-related dismissals.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Protected Strike
• Secondary Strike
• Procedural Fairness
• Labour Relations Act

South African Local Government Association v South African Municipal Workers Union (JA26/07)

South African Local Government Association v South African Municipal Workers Union (JA26/07) [2011] ZALAC 4; [2011] 7 BLLR 649 (LAC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1886 (LAC) (29 March 2011)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA26/07

Judges

Waglay, Zondo, Kruger

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 66(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act imports a proportionality test, requiring the court to weigh the reasonableness of the nature and extent of the secondary strike against its possible direct or indirect effect on the business of the primary employer. The secondary strike in question was limited to one day and excluded essential services, thus minimizing harm to municipalities and the public. The court found that municipalities play a role in the activities of national and provincial government and provide operational and administrative services, es…

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Proportionality Test
• Collective Bargaining
• Cooperative Governance
• Protected Strike

Clidet No 957 (Pty) Ltd v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (J2401/2010)

Clidet No 957 (Pty) Ltd v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (J2401/2010) [2010] ZALCJHB 338 (3 December 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2401/2010

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the proposed secondary strike would have a significant adverse effect on the applicant's business, causing substantial financial losses, but would have minimal or no effect on the business of the primary employer, MTC. The connection between the applicant and MTC was insufficient to justify the secondary strike, as the applicant was not reasonably capable of exerting pressure on MTC to resolve the union's dispute. The requirements of section 66(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act were therefore not met. The court condoned the applicant's failure to provide the required noti…

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Interdict
• Condonation Of Late Notice
• Protected Strike
• Reasonableness Requirement

Clidet No 957 (Pty) Ltd v South African Municipal Workers Union and Another (J 2401/2010)

Clidet No 957 (Pty) Ltd v South African Municipal Workers Union and Another (J 2401/2010) [2010] ZALC 184; [2011] 3 BLLR 225 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1070 (LC) (3 December 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J 2401/2010

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the secondary strike called by the union would have a significant impact on the applicant's business, causing substantial financial losses, but would have little to no effect on the business of the primary employer, MTC. The connection between the applicant and MTC was insufficient to exert pressure on MTC to resolve the dispute with the union. The court held that the requirements of section 66(2)(c) of the LRA were not met, as the secondary strike was not reasonable in its nature and extent, given its lack of impact on the primary employer. The applicant's failure to giv…

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Interdict
• Reasonableness Requirement
• Protected Strike
• Condonation Of Late Notice

Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union and Others (J01/2010)

Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union and Others (J01/2010) [2010] ZALC 7; (2010) 31 ILJ 1855 (LC) (28 January 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J01/2010

Judge

Bhoola

The court held that the proposed secondary strike at the applicant was not reasonable in relation to its possible effect on the primary dispute. The absence of a secondary strike at Coca Cola Africa made any indirect effect on ABI too remote. The harm that would be caused to the applicant by a nationwide and indefinite secondary strike would be extensive and disproportionate to any limited and unlikely impact on the primary strike. Therefore, the requirements of section 66(2)(c) read with section 68 of the Labour Relations Act were not satisfied, and the rule nisi was confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Reasonableness Test
• Proportionality
• Labour Relations Act
• Protected Strike

Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd v Food And Allied Workers Union and Others (J01/2010)

Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Ltd v Food And Allied Workers Union and Others (J01/2010) [2010] ZALCJHB 328 (28 January 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J01/2010

Judge

Bhoola

The court found that the proposed secondary strike at the applicant would not be reasonable in relation to its possible effect on the primary dispute. The absence of a secondary strike at Coca Cola Africa rendered the likelihood of a shortage of product leading to pressure on ABI to resolve the primary strike a remote possibility. The harm to the applicant from a nationwide and indefinite secondary strike would be extensive and disproportionate to any limited or unlikely impact on the primary employer. The requirements of section 66(2)(c) read with section 68 of the Labour Relations Act were…

Source excerpt

• Secondary Strike
• Reasonableness Test
• Proportionality
• Section 66 Labour Relations Act
• Protected Strike