IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JR 2203/05
In the matter between:
WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING
AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION First Respondent
THE PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE
“A” TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION Second to further Respondents
JUDGMENT
REVELAS, J
[1] Yesterday was the return day of a rule nisi issued on 15 November
of this year, where the Court gave interim relief to the effect that
the second and further respondents be interdicted and restrained
from approaching, or be within 500 metres of the perimeter of any
of the applicant’s distribution centres situated in various parts of
Johannesburg’s more industrial areas. This interdict was extended
in a later application to apply to the respondent’s commercial
outlets as well.
[2] The second paragraph of the rule granted, was that the second and
further respondents be interdicted and restrained from intimidating,
assaulting, harassing and in any other way interfering with the
applicant’s business, its employees and customers. The rule also
provided for the second and further respondents to be interdicted
and restrained from inciting or engaging any persons to commit
any of the aforesaid acts.
[3] A mandatory order was also granted, compelling the first
respondent (“the Union”) to intervene and take all reasonable steps
to ensure that its members conduct themselves in a lawful manner,
and in particular, to refrain from obstructing access to, and egress
from the applicant’s stores, and intimidating or threatening or
assaulting any other persons. A cost order was also sought against
the respondents.
[4] The respondents deny any form of intimidation or acting in any
unlawful manner. I was, however, shown a video recording (by the
applicant) of a group of persons, some of whom carried sticks and
preventing a truck from entering the applicant’s premises. Other
conduct shown to be participated in, was that one employee (if it
was indeed an employee) sitting on the tar road and prevented a
truck from turning into the applicant’s premises. The group filmed
in the video recording, consisted of approximately 60 persons who
appeared to have been arrested by the police, whose presence was
also seen on the video. None of the 60 persons featured in the
video recording, were identified as employees and there was no
attempt to identify these persons to the Court, whereas I do not
believe that would have been difficult for the applicant to do.
[5] The Labour Court has always been, and probably always will be,
sympathetic to employers in a situation where violence has erupted
during a strike. It is against such behaviour that the Court would
readily grant interdicts. However, there should be some limitation
to the granting of such interdicts in situations where the
respondents are not properly identified. The Court should always
take into account what attempts have been made to identify persons
against whom it issues such orders. It is not always possible to do
so, and that per se would not be an impediment to obtain an
interdict. That would depend on the facts of each case.
[6] The respondents have, through their counsel in court, stated that
there would be no problem with giving an undertaking that there
will be no intimidation and incitement, however, that does not
mean that I should make an order against them when one does not
know which employees were involved in the actions complained
of.
[7] Even if just a few names were put forward, the Court would be in a
position to grant such an interdict, in the knowledge that the order
is directed against at least some specific individuals who have been
shown to behave in a certain way. To grant a “blanket” court order,
covering a whole range of the applicant’s stores and employees
without any attempt to identify persons, I believe would be wrong.
[8] The applicant also wants an injunction against any of its employees
picketing within 500 metres of its stores, and other premises. Here
I must remind myself that the right to strike is guaranteed by the
Constitution, and although that right has to be earned, by following
certain procedures, and any limitation thereto should be guarded
against. There is no point to a strike or picket, if employees are not
permitted to be within 500 metres of the applicant’s stores. I do not
wish to take judicial cognisance of how wide a pavement is, but to
place employees half a kilometre away from the stores, practically
disables them from picketing, or if they choose to picket it would
have no effect, whatsoever.
[9] It was suggested by counsel for the respondents that the relief that
should have been sought by the applicant in this regard was one of
interdicting employees, blocking the entrances of the store in question.
Counsel for the applicant then argued that that would only mean that the
applicant would have to come back to Court as such an arrangement
cause disruption too.
[10] In the absence of any positive suggestion from the applicant as to
how to resolve the problem, I am unable to confirm the rule. The
applicants may, if there is any further intimidation or disruption at
its premises, approach the Court again with an urgent application
which contains much more particularity of the events complained
of and a proper suggestion for picketing rules.
[11] In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.
________________
Elna Revelas
Judge of the Labour Court
Date of Hearing: 07 December 2005
Date of Judgment: 08 December 2005
Appearances
For the Applicant: Ms K Linstrom instructed by Perrott, Van Niekerk and
Woodhouse Inc
For the Respondents: Adv FA Boda instructed by KNRP Attorneys.