Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others (2025/085193) [2025] ZALCJHB 343 (1 August 2025)
REPORTABILITY SCORE: 82/100 Labour Law — Strike Action — Interdict against strike — Application to confirm rule nisi and interim order interdicting strike action and violence — Requirements for interdict not met — Strike action deemed protected under the Labour Relations Act — Interim order confirmed only in respect of picketing and violence. The applicants sought to confirm a rule nisi and interim order that interdicts strike action initiated by the first respondent, a trade union, claiming that the union's request for organizational rights was improperly handled. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a clear right to an interdict against the strike, as the union's right to strike is constitutionally protected. The court confirmed the interim order only to prohibit picketing and violence due to the absence of established picketing rules.
Case Note
Singamandla and Others v South African Public Workers Trade Union and Others
Case No: 2025 – 085193
Date: 1 August 2025
Reportability
This case is reportable due to its implications for the interpretation of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995, particularly regarding the rights of trade unions to engage in strike action and the conditions under which such actions may be interdictable. The judgment clarifies the requirements for confirming a rule nisi and interim order related to strike actions, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with procedural prerequisites before a strike can be deemed lawful.
Cases Cited
- Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221
- Minister of Health v Drums & Pails Reconditioning CC t/a Village Drums & Pails 1997 (3) SA 867 (N)
- SA Transport & Allied Workers Union & others v Moloto NO & another
Legislation Cited
- Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (as amended)
Rules of Court Cited
- None cited in the judgment.
HEADNOTE
Summary
The Labour Court addressed an application to confirm a rule nisi and interim order that interdicts strike action initiated by the South African Public Workers Trade Union (SAPWTU). The court found that the requirements for interdicting the strike were not met, leading to the confirmation of the interim order only concerning picketing and violence.
Key Issues
The key legal issues included the validity of the strike notice issued by SAPWTU, the compliance of the applicants with the procedural requirements of the Labour Relations Act, and the interpretation of the rights of employees to engage in strike action.
Held
The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to interdict the strike action. The interim order was confirmed only in relation to picketing and violence, as the necessary jurisdictional prerequisites for a strike interdict were not satisfied.
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Singamandla, operates as a temporary employment service and is involved in providing employees to various clients, including Shoprite. The South African Public Workers Trade Union, representing employees of the applicants, sought organizational rights under the Labour Relations Act but faced refusals from the applicants. Following unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the union issued a strike notice, prompting the applicants to seek an interdict against the strike action, citing concerns over violence and picketing.
THE ISSUES
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants had a valid basis to interdict the strike action initiated by SAPWTU. This involved assessing whether the union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for issuing a strike notice and whether the applicants had a clear right to seek such an interdict.
ANALYSIS
The court analyzed the procedural requirements set forth in the Labour Relations Act, particularly sections concerning the rights of trade unions to request organizational rights and the conditions under which a strike may be deemed lawful. It was determined that the applicants had not met the necessary prerequisites for interdicting the strike, as the union's request for organizational rights had not been properly addressed. The court emphasized the fundamental right of employees to engage in strike action, which should not be unduly restricted.
REMEDY
The court confirmed the interim order only in relation to issues of picketing and violence, allowing the strike action to proceed under the conditions that no unlawful conduct would occur. The applicants were instructed to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act regarding the conduct of the strike.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The judgment established that for an interdict against strike action to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate a clear right, an injury that has occurred or is reasonably apprehended, and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy. Furthermore, the right to strike is a constitutional right that must be protected unless there are compelling reasons to limit it, strictly adhering to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.