Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2023] ZALCJHB 57

Anglo American Coal South Africa v CCMA and Others (JR 2115/20)

Anglo American Coal South Africa v CCMA and Others (JR 2115/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 57; (2023) 44 ILJ 1500 (LC) (13 March 2023)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR 2115/20
Judge
Nindi

The Labour Court found that the commissioner’s decision to grant organisational rights to the Coalition was reasonable and justified under section 21(8C) of the LRA. The requirements of section 21(8C)(b) are disjunctive, allowing rights to be granted if a union represents either a significant interest or a substantial number of employees. The Coalition’s historical presence and stable membership supported the finding that it represented a significant interest in the workplace, even though its representivity was below the threshold set in the recognition agreement. The commissioner correctly c…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Review Of Arbitration Award
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Majoritarianism
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2019] ZALAC 58

Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA40/2018)

Murray and Roberts (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA40/2018) [2019] ZALAC 58; [2019] 11 BLLR 1224 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 2510 (LAC) (20 August 2019)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA40/2018
Judges
Waglay JP, Jappie JA, Coppin JA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court was correct in setting aside the settlement agreement and the jurisdictional ruling. Both Murray and Roberts and AMCU, as well as the presiding commissioner, operated under a common mistake regarding the legal position of threshold agreements and organisational rights. The threshold agreements did not preclude AMCU from seeking organisational rights, and the settlement agreement was void as it was based on a common mistaken assumption about the law. The other trade unions party to the threshold agreements did not have a direct and substantial…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Common Mistake
  • Joinder
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Jurisdictional Ruling
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2018] ZALCJHB 25

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2534/15)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2534/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 25; (2018) 39 ILJ 1303 (LC); [2018] 7 BLLR 656 (LC) (25 January 2018)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR2534/15
Judge
Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court held that threshold agreements such as the PLA and PA do not bar minority unions from requesting organisational rights under the LRA. The settlement agreement between AMCU and Murray & Roberts was concluded on the basis of a common mistake regarding AMCU's eligibility for organisational rights, influenced by an incorrect interpretation of the law. Both parties erroneously believed that AMCU had to comply with the collective agreements before exercising organisational rights, which is inconsistent with constitutional and statutory principles. Consequently, the settlement agree…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Settlement Agreement Review
  • Common Mistake
  • Jurisdictional Ruling
  • Delay Condonation
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALAC 36

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015) [2017] ZALAC 36 (31 May 2017)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA87/2015
Judges
Ndlovu, Coppin, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 20 of the Labour Relations Act expressly allows the conclusion of collective agreements regulating organisational rights, even where a section 18(1) threshold agreement exists. The agreed threshold establishes a minimum for automatic entitlement to rights, but does not bar the employer from bargaining with minority unions for such rights. The majoritarian system must operate fairly, permitting minority unions to co-exist and represent their members. The Labour Court erred in finding the collective agreement with SACOSWU invalid; the threshold agreemen…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Majoritarianism
  • Collective Agreements
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Labour Relations Act
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALAC 30

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015)

South African Correctional Services Workers Union (SACOSWU) v Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and Others (JA87/2015) [2017] ZALAC 30; [2017] 9 BLLR 905 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2009 (LAC) (31 May 2017)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA87/2015
Judges
Ndlovu, Coppin, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 20 of the Labour Relations Act expressly allows for the conclusion of collective agreements regulating organisational rights, even where a section 18(1) threshold agreement exists. The existence of a threshold agreement does not bar an employer from bargaining with a minority union or concluding a collective agreement with it. The threshold agreement obliges the employer to confer rights on unions that meet the threshold, but does not prevent the employer from granting rights to unions that have not met the threshold. The principle of majoritarianism…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Majoritarianism
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Minority Union Rights
  • Labour Relations Act
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALCCT 1

IMATU v CCMA and Others (C344/2016)

IMATU v CCMA and Others (C344/2016) [2017] ZALCCT 1; [2017] 6 BLLR 613 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2027 (LC) (31 January 2017)

Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C344/2016
Judge
A Steenkamp

The commissioner failed to consider the mandatory factors set out in section 21(8) of the Labour Relations Act when deciding whether to grant organisational rights to MATUSA under section 21(8C). He based his decision solely on MATUSA's significant interest in the workplace, disregarding the need to minimise union proliferation, the financial and administrative burden on the employer, the nature of the workplace, the sector, organisational history, and workforce composition. This constitutes a gross irregularity and a misconception of the nature of the enquiry, rendering the award reviewable.…

Source excerpt

  • Organisational Rights
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Threshold Agreements
  • Arbitration Review
  • Freedom Of Association
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.