THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D 413/05
REPORTABLE
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED
WORKERS UNION Applicant
and
COIN REACTION Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR THE ORDER MADE
FRANCIS J
Introduction
1. The applicant, acting on its own behalf and of that of its members, brought an
urgent application to declare the strike which its members have embarked
upon at the respondent’s premises to be lawful and in compliance with the
provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”). The applicant
also sought some ancillary relief.
2. On 17 June 2005 after having heard arguments, I made the following
order:
“2.1 The applicant’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Rules of
this Court is condoned.
2.2 The strike which the applicant’s members embarked upon at the
respondent’s premises is declared to be protected and in compliance
with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
2.3 The respondent is interdicted from dismissing the applicant’s members
pursuant to the strike;
2.4 The respondent is to reinstate any employees which it might have
dismissed pursuant to the said strike.
2.5 The respondent is to pay the costs of the application including those
reserved on 10 June 2005.”
3. I said to the parties that I would provide reasons for the order that I made.
These are my reasons.
The background facts
4. The applicant’s members are employees of the respondent. During May or
June 2004 the applicant approached the respondent at its Pinetown branch to
negotiate wages. The respondent stated that it could not negotiate at regional
level but at head office level. On 11 August 2004 the applicant sent a letter to
the respondent. The subject matter of the letter was a “Salary Increase
Proposal”. The letter contained certain proposals and requested a date for
salary negotiations. A meeting was held on 11 August 2004 where the
applicant repeated its demand for a wage increase. The respondent refused to
negotiate on the basis that the negotiations were done at head office level. The
respondent responded in a fax dated 12 August and requested information
about “all reaction officers becoming members of the applicant” referred to in
the applicant’s letter before agreeing to any meeting. On 17 August 2004 the
respondent requested the information that it had sought from the applicant.
5. On 18 August 2004 the applicant referred a dispute to the CCMA for
conciliation. The nature of the dispute was described as a “Refusal to
Bargain”. The facts were stated to be that “the respondent was approached for
salary negotiations but were refusing”. The outcome sought was “to enforce
the respondent to come to the table for negotiations”. On 16 September 2004
the respondent wrote to the applicant and stated amongst others that in
considering the outcome sought for conciliation that it had at no stage
indicated an unwillingness to negotiate. A negotiation meeting date was set
for 29 September 2004. The respondent wanted confirmation that the referral
to the CCMA would be withdrawn. The applicant responded in a letter dated
16 September 2004. It stated that a meeting was scheduled for 29 September
2004 but that the negotiations should be held under the auspices of the CCMA
due to the mistrust that exists between the parties and that the meeting at the
CCMA scheduled for 17 September 2004 would go on. Thereafter the
applicant withdrew the referral to the CCMA and the parties agreed to
negotiate.
6. The parties met on 29 September 2004 to negotiate wages as previously
agreed upon. The applicant contended that the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act applied whereas the respondent contended that a Sectoral
Determination applied. It was agreed that an opinion would be obtained from
the Department of Labour about whether the armed reaction personnel fell
under the Sectoral Determination.
7. The applicant obtained an opinion from the Department of Labour on 13
December 2004. This was sent to the respondent on 10 January 2005. The
gist of the opinion was that if the armed reaction officers are employees in the
gist of the opinion was that if the armed reaction officers are employees in the
private security sector and if they are security officers, then the Sectoral
Determination applies.
8. A meeting was arranged between the parties for 24 January 2005. The
applicant’s view was that the Sectoral Determination did not apply and the
respondent’s view was that it applied. The parties were unable to reach any
consensus and the meeting ended. The applicant referred a dispute to the
CCMA for conciliation on 25 January 2005. The dispute was described as a
“mutual interest dispute” and the applicant sought to obtain the right to strike.
An advisory arbitration award was issued on 22 February 2005. A certificate
of outcome was issued on 23 February 2005 stating that the dispute remained
unresolved and the parties could strike.
9. Several meetings took place after the certificate of non resolution was issued,
in an attempt to resolve the dispute which failed. On 1 June 2005 the
applicant gave notice to the respondent that a strike would commence on 4
June 2005. The respondent responded on 3 June 2005. It stated that it had
agreed to negotiate and had met the demands of the 7.11 referral. The strike
was accordingly illegal and unprotected.
10. On 4 June 2005 the applicant’s members went on strike. At 07h00 the
respondent issued a notice advising that it believed that the employees’ actions
were illegal. The applicant denied that the strike action was unprotected and
stated that it was prepared to negotiate.
11. The strike continued on 6 June 2005. The applicant wrote to the respondent
enquiring whether it was prepared to continue with the wage negotiations, and
repeated that the applicant was prepared to resolve the strike provided that the
respondent committed itself to wage negotiations. The respondent responded
and stated that it was prepared to negotiate on 7 June 2005 at 06h00. The
applicant responded that it was prepared to negotiate but at the respondent’s
premises and at a reasonable time. The respondent repeated that the strike was
unprotected and illegal. It issued a notice stating that the applicant’s members
had embarked in an unprotected strike and that steps would be taken. They
were given an ultimatum to return at 15h00. Later the same day a notice for
the employees to attend a disciplinary enquiry was issued.
12. On 8 June 2005 the applicant’s wrote to the respondent stating that the strike
was legal and that they were involved in lawful activity and that any attempts
to dismiss or discipline its members would be unlawful. It sought reasons
why the respondent contended that the strike was unprotected. The respondent
responded that the strike was unprotected and they would proceed with the
disciplinary action. It further indicated that on 10 June 2005 a verdict would
be given. This prompted the applicant to bring the application on 10 June
2005. The matter was postponed to 17 June 2005 after certain undertakings
were given by the respondent.
Analysis of the facts and arguments raised
13. The crisp issue in this matter relates to the question whether the dispute that
forms the basis of the applicant’s members strike has been referred to the
CCMA as required in terms of section 64(1)(a ) of the Act.
14. The applicant’s case is that the dispute referred to the CCMA essentially was
one of wage negotiations and the respondent’s failure to negotiate. The
employees are on strike to enforce a demand for higher wages.
15. The respondent’s case is that the issue in dispute over which the employees
are striking is not the same issue referred for conciliation. What was referred
for conciliation was an issue in dispute about the respondent’s failure to
negotiate or a refusal to bargain and not a dispute about wages which is the
dispute that forms the subject of the strike. It was contended that because of
this, the applicant’s members could not embark on any strike action relating to
failure to negotiate.
16. It is trite that in determining a dispute such as the present, that the Court is
required to ascertain the really underlying dispute. In conducting that enquiry
the Court should look at the substance of the dispute and not at the form in
which it is presented. The characterisation of a dispute is not necessarily
conclusive. See Ceramics Industries t/a Betta Sanitary Ware and another v
NCBAWU & others [1997] 6 BLLR 697 (LAC); Fidelity Guards Holdings
(Pty) Ltd v Professional Transport Workers Union (1) (1998) 19 ILJ 260
(LAC) and Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v Adams & others [2000] 4 BLLR
371 (LAC).
17. The true or real dispute should be ascertained from a consideration of the
relevant facts including the referral form to conciliation, the correspondence
immediately before and after the conciliation; the negotiations and discussions
which took place at the conciliation and the content of the advisory award and
the affidavits filed with this court.
18. It is common cause that the applicant had approached the respondent from
May 2004 onwards to negotiate a wage increase. Correspondence followed
and the main theme was “Salary Increase Proposal”. It is further common
cause that in August 2004 the applicant referred a “refusal to bargain” dispute
to the CCMA. That dispute was resolved after the respondent agreed to
bargain with the applicant.
19. A further dispute arose which was referred to the CCMA for conciliation on
25 January 2005. In the referral form the nature of the dispute is described as
a “mutual interest dispute” and not a “refusal to bargain”. The facts that are
summarised in the referral are that “the wage negotiations started in
September 2004 since the employer is refusing to bargain (No wage increase.
No bonus)”. Under the heading the “result required” is stated: “To attempt to
bring parties to earnest negotiations for wages or right to strike”. This does
not convert the dispute into one about the “refusal to bargain”.
20. The commissioner issued an advisory award dated 22 February 2005. He
recorded that the issue was referred to the CCMA by the applicant as a wage
dispute after attempts to negotiate wages with the respondent had failed. The
commissioner made certain recommendations that the parties have a duty to
obtain jointly and/or severally, to obtain “decisive exclusion on whether or not
they fall within the scope of the Security Sectoral Determination before
embarking on any action in terms of section 64 of the Act”. A certificate of
outcome dated 23 February 2005 was issued stating that the dispute remained
unresolved. It states that the dispute concerns mutual interests and relates to
wages. It indicates further that the parties can strike.
21. The respondent did not bring an application to have the certificate of outcome
reviewed. It remains valid until it is set aside by an order of this Court on
review. In this regard see Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Epstein NO &
Others [2002] 12 BLLR 1389 (LAC).
22. It is clear from the correspondence that the applicant wanted to engage the
respondent in wage negotiations in 2004. The respondent’s attitude was that
the negotiations could not take place at branch level but rather at head office
level. At some stage the applicant was of the view that the respondent was not
prepared to bargain. A dispute was declared and referred to the CCMA for
prepared to bargain. A dispute was declared and referred to the CCMA for
conciliation in August 2004. The parties agreed that they would bargain.
Some delays took place which prompted the applicant to refer a second
dispute to the CCMA. Conciliation took place and a certificate of non
resolution was issued. It is untrue that there were no negotiations prior to 24
January 2005 and that the respondent refused to bargain with the applicant.
As at 24 January 2005, the issue pertaining to Sectoral Determination was a
subsidiary issue that arose within the context of the wage dispute. The wage
dispute was the real underlying dispute.
23. The fact that further negotiations took place or that the parties met after a
certificate was issued is no bar from allowing the applicant’s members in
embarking on strike action. The requirements as set out in section 64(1) and
(2) have been met.
24. Even if I were to find that the real dispute was a “refusal to bargain” dispute
which was referred to conciliation on 25 January 2005, this will not assist the
respondent at all. Once an advisory award is issued in terms of section 64(2)
read with section 135(3) of the Act, 48 hours notice must be given before the
strike. The advisory award was issued on 22 February 2005 and the notice of
the strike was given on 2 June 2005. The applicant’s complied with the
provisions of section 64(1) and (2) of the Act. The “refusal to bargain”
dispute is in any event “strikable”. The applicant’s members could therefore
embark on strike action and such strike would be protected.
25. The conclusion that I reach is that the strike action that the applicant’s
members have embarked upon is protected. Since it is protected, the
respondent cannot dismiss employees for participating in the strike action in
terms of section 67(2). The same would apply to disciplinary proceedings
unless the employees have committed misconduct.
26. Both parties had sought costs against the other despite the fact that they do
have an ongoing relationship. There is no reason why costs should not follow
the result.
27. It was for these reasons that I made the order of 17 June 2005.
FRANCIS J
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE APPLICANT : D CRAMPTON INSTRUCTED BY VON
KLEMPERERS ATTORNEYS
FOR THE RESPONDENT : M BINGHAM INSTRUCTED MACROBERTS
INC
DATE OF HEARING : 17 JUNE 2005
DATE OF ORDER : 17 JUNE 2005
DATE OF REASONS : 24 JUNE 2005