South Africa Case Law

Mziba v Osborn Engineered Products SA (Pty) Ltd (JS110-21)

Mziba v Osborn Engineered Products SA (Pty) Ltd (JS110-21) [2024] ZALCJHB 528 (5 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS110/21

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Court found that the retrenchment agreement was a collective agreement as defined by section 213 of the LRA and that the jurisdictional facts for extension under section 23(1)(d) were satisfied. The applicant was identified in the agreement, expressly bound by its terms, and the majority unions were parties. The inclusion of non-unionised employees did not alter the agreement's character. The principle of majoritarianism and the objectives of the LRA—orderly collective bargaining, labour peace, and workplace democratisation—supported the binding nature of the agreement. The applicant's co…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement
• Majoritarianism
• Retrenchment
• Section 23 Lra
• Section 189a Lra
• Jurisdiction

JCI Mining (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers and Others (J1337/21)

JCI Mining (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers and Others (J1337/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 90 (28 February 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1337/21

Judge

T Govender

The Labour Court discharged an interim interdict against NUM, holding the applicant had not shown that a wage agreement with AMCU bound NUM members.

• Collective Agreements
• Strike Action
• Section 65 Lra
• Section 23 Lra
• Interdict Proceedings
• Collective-agreements

Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) (J1984/18)

Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) (J1984/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 434 (29 June 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1984/18

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court held that the amended collective agreement, which includes a peace clause, is a valid collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act. The requirements of section 23(1)(d) are satisfied, binding NUMSA members to the agreement and its peace obligation. The right to strike, while constitutionally protected, is subject to lawful limitations. The procedural referral of a dispute to the CCMA does not override the substantive limitation imposed by the peace clause. NUMSA failed to plead or prove that the extension of the agreement was arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide. Accordingly,…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Peace Clause
• Limitations On Right To Strike
• Section 23 Lra
• Urgent Interdict
• Protected Strike Action

Schoeman v Anglo American Platinum Limited (JS317/16)

Schoeman v Anglo American Platinum Limited (JS317/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 126 (20 March 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS317/16

Judge

Lekale

The court found that while the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay between March 2016 and the filing of the statement of claim, the prospects of success in the unfair dismissal claim were lacking. The respondent's version, supported by the collective agreement extended to non-parties under section 23(1)(d) of the LRA, indicated that the applicant had waived any right to challenge the fairness of the retrenchment. Applying the respondent-friendly test, the court held that granting condonation in the absence of prospects of success would be futile and not in…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Agreement
• Section 23 Lra
• Section 189a Lra

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Members v South African Airways Soc Limited and Another (JA15/16)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Members v South African Airways Soc Limited and Another (JA15/16) [2017] ZALAC 32; [2017] 9 BLLR 867 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1994 (LAC) (31 May 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 15/16

Judges

Tlaletsi, Molemela, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that a retrenchment agreement concluded with majority unions and extended under section 23(1)(d) of the LRA is a collective agreement capable of binding non-party employees. The Court found that the definition of 'matter of mutual interest' in the LRA is broad enough to encompass both interest and rights disputes, including retrenchment agreements. The principle of majoritarianism, as codified in the LRA and endorsed by the Constitutional Court, justifies the extension of such agreements to non-parties to promote orderly collective bargaining and labour peace. The…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Majoritarianism
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Extension To Non Parties
• Fair Labour Practices
• Section 23 Lra

South African Airways (SOC) Ltd v South African Cabin Crew Association and Others (J949/17)

South African Airways (SOC) Ltd v South African Cabin Crew Association and Others (J949/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 158 (10 May 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J949/17

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court confirmed an interdict stopping an unprotected strike over meal allowances, finding the issue was regulated by a binding collective agreement.

• Collective Bargaining
• Strike Interdict
• Extension Of Collective Agreement
• Protected Strike
• Section 65 Lra
• Section 23 Lra

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