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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCCT 30
|
|
Southern Workwear (Pty) Ltd v Bristow (C1261/18) [2019] ZALCCT 30 (11 October 2019)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not
Reportable
Case no: C1261/18
In the matter between:
SOUTHERN WORKWEAR
(PTY)
LTD Applicant
and
WARWICK
BRETT
BRISTOW
Respondent
Date
heard: August 20 2019
Delivered:
October 11 2019
JUDGMENT
RABKIN-NAICKER, J
[1]
This is an application to find the respondent in contempt of a court
order by consent between the parties,
handed down on the 6 February
2019. The contents of the order were as follows:
“
1.
The First Respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of any other
person, company or entity, is interdicted and restrained from
until
31 March 2019:
1.1
Canvassing or soliciting for order any
business of a similar nature, or identical, to that conducted by the
Applicant from any of
its suppliers, customers, consumers or
purchasers;
1.2
Directly or indirectly engaging in (other
than a shareholder of the JSE), or setting up, any business within
the RSA which would
be likely to compete with the Applicant or which
deals in or distributes any product which, at any time during the
past two years,
was dealt in or distributed by the Applicant in the
RSA; and
1.3
Disclosing any of the Applicant’s
confidential information to any third party, including but not
limited Global Solutions
Corporate Clothing (Pty) Ltd, Kohler Safety
(Pty) Ltd, Jelia Trading and Mia Office Works CC.
[2]
It is averred by the Chairman of the applicant that he received an
email on the 6 March 2019 from Basson
Workwear, a customer of the
applicant. The email reflects that the respondent solicited from the
buyer of Basson Workwear (one
Riaande Gerber), the business of
supplying to her items of workwear manufactured by applicant’s
suppliers Treadsafe, BoA,
Leo Garments, and Glolite. The email is
attached to the founding affidavit and reads:
“
Hi
Rianda
I owe
you the biggest of apologies. I was supposed to come and see you some
weeks ago, but on the day I had some car challenges
and I clear
forgot to postpone the meeting. Then I just forgot.
Seriously,
a thousand apologies!
I have
worked out what I am going to be doing with myself now.
I am
working as a free agent for 4 different workwear companies:
Treadsafe
– BBF Products Jonssons, Euro (Terminator), Overalls, socke…
BOA –
Gloves, Rainsuits, Budget Boots, Ref Waistcoats……
LeoGarments
– Freezer Jackets, Bunny jackets, waders, rainsuits, local
reflective…
Glolite
– Cones, Constuctive Lights striped poles, plastic chai, convex
mirrors….
They
are all great companies and cover a very wide range of Safety and
Protective Clothing. None of them conflicts with the other.
There
are several items that I think you would be interested in hearing
about, so would like to know if I could come see you and
chat
further. I promise I won’t stand you up again and I will bring
chocolate Would you like to suggest a date and time?...
[3]
The conduct in contempt of the Court order as reflected in
Applicant’s email to Gerber is described
as follows in the
founding affidavit:
“
14.1
during the time period (the restraint period, which expired on 31
March 2019), Respondent canvassed
and solicited business, which
business was identical to that conducted by the Applicant, from one
of the Applicant’s customers;
14.2
had solicited for order workwear from four of Applicant’s
suppliers;
14.3
actively engaged in a business which competes with the Applicant, and
which deals in and
distributing products which Applicant has dealt in
and distributed during the past two years.
15.
Respondent is accordingly the responsible person, who was aware of
the Order,
and who deliberately refused to comply therewith.
[4]
Annexures which contain evidentiary support to the above allegations
are annexed to the founding affidavit.
[5]
In an answering hand written sworn statement the Respondent avers the
following:
“
I
had no intention at all of competing with Southern Workwear when I
sent the mail dated 07/03/2019 to Basson’s Workwear.
There is
no competition between what I am selling and what Southern Workwear
offers to Bassons Workw has ever sold to Bassons Wear.
The facts are:
1) Bassons Workwear has a trade agreement with IMSS and could not buy
PPE from me – I knew this 2) the companies
I represent do not
offer (to my knowledge) any goods Southern Workwear has ever sold to
Bassons Workwear) I was intending to sell
work jackets to Bassons
that Southern Workwear does not and never has offered 4) Southern
Workwear knows that I could not sell
to Bassons Workwear.”
[6]
In reply it is submitted that the denials in the above statement are
bare as the facts in the founding
affidavit and its annexures
demonstrate. It is further averred in reply that:
“
4.
The Respondent was ordered by this honourable Court (see GT1) not to
canvass, or to solicit, business of a nature that is similar
or
identical to the Applicant’s business, from any of its
suppliers, customers, consumers or purchasers. I am advised that
the
Respondent’s ‘íntention’ is not a relevant
consideration; furthermore that he was in fact well-aware,
by virtue
of being our Sales Manager at the relevant time that:
4.1. Applicant is in the
business of supplying work-wear to our customers including footwear
(safety boots), rain suits, freezer
jackets, conti-suits and more;
4.2. Basson Workwear is
one of our customers, which purchased from us regularly during
Respondent’s tenure as sales manager.
4.3. We regularly supply
items manufactured by both Treadsafe and BOA to our customers; and
4.4. In canvassing and
soliciting the business of dealing in items supplied by Treadsafe and
BOA, Respondent was actively engaging
in a business likely to compete
with the Applicant, and which deals in and distributes products which
Applicant dealt in or distributed
in the past two years.”
[7]
In my view, the respondent’s sworn statement in answer did
amount to a bare
denial. He represented himself in Court and his
submissions took his defence no further.
[8]
The applicant limited its remedy to a declaratory order and costs, in
submission before
me. Such an order requires proof on a balance of
probability
[1]
. Such proof is
evident from the papers before me. I make the following order:
Order
1.
The Respondent is declared to be in
contempt of the Court Order dated 6 February 2019 under case number
C1261/2018.
2.
Respondent is to pay the costs of this
application
_________________
H. Rabkin-Naicker
Judge
of the Labour Court
Appearances:
Applicant: S. Harvey
instructed by De Klerk & Van Gend Inc
Respondent:
In person
[1]
Fakie
NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd
[2006] ZASCA 52
;
2006 (4) SA 326
(SCA)paras 19, 41
and 42(e)