SACCAWU and Others v Mandate Meal Management (J363/2002) [2002] ZALC 11 (6 February 2002)

JUDGMENT
Snellers Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: J363/2002
In the matter between:
Applicants
and
MANDATE MEAL MANAGEMENT Respondent
JUDGMENT
LANDMAN J:
1. The   South   African   Commercial   Catering   &   Allied   Workers   Union   and   11   others  
brings an urgent application against Mandate Meal Management for a rule   nisi, to

declare the lock­out against the strike by the second and further applicants to be a  
nullity, and to interdict the employer from refusing to allow the second and further  
applicants from resuming their duties and directing the employer to pay them 
2. ­2­
their wages and to pay the costs of the application.
3. It appears in this case that the second and further applicants engaged in a protected  
strike.   The   strike   was   protected   because   the   procedure   laid   down   in   the   Labour  
Relations Act 66 of 1995 had been complied with. The dispute had been referred to  
the   CCMA.   The   dispute   related   to   wages   and   substantive   increases.   The   union’s  
demand was for an increase of R 350,00 per month for a minimum wage of R 1500,00  
per   month   and   a   travelling   allowance   of   R   250,00   per   month.   The   employer   had  
declined to comply with the demand.
4. Thereafter proper notice was given by the union and the employees embarked on a  
strike. The strike continued up until 17 January 2002. In the meantime the employer  
had furnished the union and employees with a notification of its intention to lock out  
in terms of  64(1)(c) of the LRA. This was furnished on 8 January 2002. The body of  
notice reads:
“You are herewith given 48 hours notice from today’s date of our intention to  
lock­out the striking workers. Please note that the rule of no work no pay will  
apply for the period not worked  by the striking workers”.
5. Once the striking workers tendered to returned to work, the employer informed them,  
in writing under the head of “Lock Out”, that they were required to sign an agreement  
prior to resuming their normal duties. The employer also said that the replacement  
workers   had   been   given   notice   and   that   they   were   to   finish   off   on   Thursday   31  
January 2002. As a result the striking workers could resume their duties on Friday 1  
February 2002.

February 2002.
6. Lastly   the   employer   pointed   out   that   should   the   agreement   not   be   signed   by   the  
members of the union, it was their intention to proceed with the lock­out until such  
time as it is signed. The strikers declined to sign the agreement. The result is that the  
strikers   who   tendered   to     return   to   work   were   not   allowed   to   work   because   the  
employer alleges that it is conducting a lawful and protected lock­out.
7. The union does not challenge the notice regarding the intention to 
8.
9. ­3­
lock­out. But it does say that it was not acted upon and that it is merely notice of  
an intention to lock­out. There was in fact no lock­out.

10. The only lock­out permitted by the LRA is the exclusion of employees from their  
place of employment until such time as they comply with the employer’s demands.  
Where employees are on strike there is no question of their being excluded because,  
by   their   own   actions,   they   do   not   enter   the   premises   and   do   not   tender   to   work.  
Therefore the employer could not at that stage take physical steps to exclude them.
11. However,  when  they   did  tender   their   services  the   employer   informed   them   of  the  
terms   of   the   lock­out.   That   lock   out   is   a   protected   one   and   it   is   one   that   is   still  
continuing. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.
Signed and dated at PORT ELIZABETH on this 6 th Day of February 2002.
__________
AA Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa