South Africa Case Law

South African Correctional Services Workers Union obo Kasper v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PA06/22)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union obo Kasper v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PA06/22) [2024] ZALAC 72; [2025] 3 BLLR 247 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 954 (LAC) (18 December 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA06/22

Judges

Van Niekerk JA, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Jolwana AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that non-party unions or employees bound by a collective agreement may refer interpretation disputes under section 24 of the LRA.

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Access To Dispute Resolution
• Section 24 Lra
• Section 34 Constitution
• Collective-agreement-interpretation

Nhlapo v Department of Health Free State (JS489/2022)

Nhlapo v Department of Health Free State (JS489/2022) [2024] ZALCJHB 498 (10 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS489/2022

Judge

RN Daniels

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's claim because the dispute concerns the application of a collective agreement (Resolution 3 of 2007). Section 24 of the LRA requires such disputes to be resolved by arbitration, and section 157(5) of the LRA expressly excludes Labour Court jurisdiction in these circumstances. Section 73A of the BCEA does not override this requirement, as it applies only to claims for unpaid amounts where the dispute does not involve the interpretation or application of a collective agreement. The court distinguished this case from Kgasane,…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Section 73a Bcea
• Section 24 Lra
• Earnings Threshold
• Arbitration Procedure

Heineken South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union and Others (2024/092689)

Heineken South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Food and Allied Workers Union and Others (2024/092689) [2024] ZALCJHB 428 (21 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

2024/092689

Judge

R Itzkin

The Labour Court confirmed an interim order declaring a strike unprotected because the dispute concerned interpretation of a collective agreement on working hours.

• Unprotected Strike
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Section 65 Lra
• Section 24 Lra
• Shift System Change
• Unprotected-strike

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J111/16)

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Ltd v SATAWU and Others (J111/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 113 (30 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J111/16

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court confirmed an interdict and held that the proposed strike was unprotected because the dispute concerned interpretation of a collective agreement.

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Protected Strike Action
• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Section 65 Lra
• Section 24 Lra
• Collective-agreement-interpretation

Autopax (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport And Allied Workers Union and Others (J2297/14)

Autopax (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport And Allied Workers Union and Others (J2297/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 374 (2 October 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2297/14

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the dispute between the parties is not a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment, nor a change in work practice. Instead, the substance of the dispute concerns the correct interpretation of 'normal working hours' as defined in the Main Collective Agreement. Specifically, whether periods when a steward is 'booked off' but present on the bus are included in ordinary hours. This interpretation dispute falls under section 24 of the LRA and is subject to arbitration. As such, the union and its members have the right to refer the matter to arbitration, and the s…

Source excerpt

• Unprotected Strike
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Section 64 Lra
• Section 24 Lra
• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Arbitration Rights

PSA obo Liebenberg v Department of Defence and Others (C 938/2011)

PSA obo Liebenberg v Department of Defence and Others (C 938/2011) [2012] ZALCCT 47; (2013) 34 ILJ 1769 (LC); [2013] 8 BLLR 804 (LC) (30 November 2012)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 938/2011

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court held that the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as it was properly pleaded as one concerning the application of PSCBC Resolution 7 of 2000, a binding collective agreement. The arbitrator misconstrued the nature of the enquiry and erred in finding that directives not incorporated into the resolution precluded jurisdiction. The Department's outsourcing of assessments and arguments regarding internal grievance procedures were irrelevant to the jurisdictional question. The Labour Appeal Court's decision in PSA obo De Bruyn v Minister of Safety & Securit…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Application
• Bargaining Council Jurisdiction
• Temporary Incapacity Leave
• Section 24 Lra
• Arbitration Review

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town (C 131/99)

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v University of Cape Town (C 131/99) [1999] ZALC 47 (25 March 1999)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C 131/99

Judge

Basson

The court found that the applicant union had committed a material breach of the recognition agreement by refusing to participate in consultative meetings, which was a core objective of the agreement. The respondent lawfully exercised its right to terminate the agreement under clause 3.1.3 by giving written notice. The applicant's subsequent retraction did not negate the breach, and the agreement was validly terminated. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as its contractual rights were open to serious doubt. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate…

Source excerpt

• Recognition Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Material Breach
• Termination Of Agreement
• Consultative Meetings
• Section 24 Lra