About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZALCJHB 88
|
|
Vanchem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (J 1026/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 88 (18 May 2013)
Not reportable
REPUBLIC OF
SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
IN JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
case
no: J 1026/13
In the matter between:
VANCHEM VANADIUM PRODUCTS
(PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
NATIONAL UNION OF
METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA
First
Respondent
THE EMPLOYEES WHOSE NAMES
ARE LISTED IN ANNEXURE "A" ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE OF
MOTION
Second
to further Respondents
Heard: 18 May 2013
Delivered: 18 May 2013
Summary:
(Unprotected strike interdict).
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE, J
Background
The application to interdict unprotected strike action is dismissed
in view of the fact that it is common cause that the striking
employees have returned to work. On the papers however, it is clear
that the strike was unprotected.
However, on the question of costs, the employer did issue ultimatums
and endeavoured to obtain employees’ return to work,
but
employees only did so at the eleventh hour when the application was
due to be heard.
On the papers, I am not satisfied that the first respondent endorsed
the actions of its members or that it did not make an effort
to
resolve the strike.
Nonetheless, the employee's action made it necessary for the
applicant to launch proceedings and incur costs through no fault
of
its own, and consequently the second to further respondents should
bear the wasted costs of the application.
Order
The matter is dealt with as one of urgency, and the applicant’s
non-compliance with the time limits in the court rules
is condoned.
By the time the matter was heard, the requirements of
section 68
of
the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
had been met.
It is declared that the strike embarked on by the second to further
respondents on 16 May 2013 was unprotected in terms of
section 68
to
the labour relations act 66 of 1995.
The second to further respondents are jointly and severally liable
for the applicants wasted costs of the application, which
they must
pay, those paying, the others to be absolved.
The declaration in paragraph [6] shall operate as an interim order
pending the return date on 13 June 2013, on which date the
respondents called upon to show good cause why the declaration
should not be made final.
_______________________
R LAGRANGE, J
Judge of the Labour Court of South
Africa
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT: D L Williams instructed by Cowan Harper Attorneys
FIRST RESPONDENT: X Ngako of Ruth Edmunds Attorneys