South Africa Case Law

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

SACWTU v Coats SA (Pty) Limited (D124/2001)

SACWTU v Coats SA (Pty) Limited (D124/2001) [2001] ZALC 18; [2001] 8 BLLR 971 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1413 (LC) (2 February 2001)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D124/2001

Judge

Pillay

The Labour Court held that section 76(1)(b) of the LRA does not prohibit an employer from using existing employees to do locked-out workers’ duties.

• Lockout
• Section 76 Lra
• Interpretation Of Statute
• Industrial Action
• Labour-relations-act
• Statutory-interpretation