Golden Arrow Bus Services v STAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALCCT 7 (12 August 2009)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Strike — Unprocedural strike — Application for interdict against strike by bus drivers of Golden Arrow Bus Services — Union's lack of adequate measures to distance itself from the strike — Individual employees held liable for costs of application — Court urges resolution of underlying grievances to prevent future disputes.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZALCCT 7
|

|

Golden Arrow Bus Services v STAWU (C588/2009) [2009] ZALCCT 7 (12 August 2009)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH
COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NO: C588/2009
DATE:13
August 2009
In
the matter between:
GOLDEN
ARROW BUS
SERVICES
Applicant
and
SATAWU
Respondent
JUDGMENT
PILLAY
D, J
This
is an application to confirm the Rule Nisi granted the day before
yesterday interdicting an unprocedural strike.  The
strike is by
bus drivers who are employees of the Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty)
Limited. It affects transport in the Western
Cape on a significant
scale.
In
May 2008 the employees had embarked on an unprocedural strike; they
were interdicted.  In July 2009 they again embarked
on an
unprocedural strike, which resulted in the strike being resolved with
the parties concluding an agreement on 31 July 2009.
Hardly a
month goes by and the employees are on strike again. They do not
oppose the granting of the interdict, save that the Union
resists any
order for costs against it.
Mr
Abrahamse, the Union official, gave evidence in order to verify the
Union’s stance that it did not support the strike and
that it
had distanced itself from the strike.  Having heard his evidence
the Court is not convinced that the Union or Mr Abrahamse
had done
enough firstly, to inform the applicant or its representatives that
it distanced itself from the strike. Secondly, it
did not do enough
to persuade its members to desist from striking, or to inform them of
the consequence of persisting with the
strike. Thirdly, Mr Abrahamse
exercised poor judgment in electing to attend a meeting of the
Provincial Development Council instead
of attending to the strike.
He made no attempt to extricate himself from either the meeting of
the Provincial Development
Council or of the V and A  Waterfront
meeting.
In
so conducting itself the Union insidiously supported the illicit
conduct of its members.
However,
to impose a cost order on the Union will damage the Union as an
organisation even further.  From Mr Abrahamse evidence
it is
clear that the Union has human capacity problems. There may be other
problems also arising from this incapacity which impact
on the
Union’s ability to make appropriate interventions, to be firm
with its members, to be circumspect about the choices
it makes and to
take responsibility for the actions and decisions of its members.
It clearly lacks the capacity, strength
and foresight in guiding its
members in pursuing their grievances.
There
is no doubt that the individual workers on strike must bear the costs
of this application. They must be aware that their illegal
conduct
comes with a price.  For the time being that price is a
proportional share of the costs incurred in this application.

If they persist in their illegal conduct that price increases as the
prospect of them being cited for contempt becomes a reality.

Another reality that is also within sight is a possibility of their
dismissal if the strike continues.
Having
said that the applicant employer needs to be aware that strikes do
not happen for no reason. Even though the demand of the
workers is
illegal, a prudent employer would look to the causes of the
discontent with a view to resolving them finally.
These
sporadic skirmishes are not good for the company, for the workers or
for the economy of this region.  It is also not
good for other
workers who rely on this transport to deliver services to poor
people.
So
I urge the parties to seriously apply themselves towards resolving
this dispute properly and finally in the next few days, so
that this
Court does not have to hear these disputes year after year, week
after week.
The
order I grant is the following;
The
rule is confirmed, the individual employees to pay the cost of the
application.
_______________________
PILLAY
D, J
For
the Applicant: Mr B Conradie from Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs
For
the Respndents: Mr E Abrahmse Union Official