1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case Number: 2026-
189011
In the matter between:
GOLDEN ARROW BUS SERVICES (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
NATIONAL UNION FOR ALL SECTORS (NUFAS) First Respondent
And
THOSE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR
ON ANNEXURE "A" TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION
Further Respondents
Heard: 28 August 2026
Delivered: 1 September 2026
JUDGMENT
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: NO
Signature Date
2
DANIELS J
Introduction
[1] The applicant brought an application to interdict an anticipated strike and now
seeks to confirm the interim order issued by my brother, Lagrange J, on 14
August 2026. The matter came before me on the return date, 28 August 2026.
On that day I reserved judgment and extended the interim order to the date of
this judgment.
The facts
[2] The first respondent and its members (hereafter “the Union ”) referred a
dispute with the applicant (hereafter “the GABS”) to the South African Road
Passenger Bargaining Council (“the Bargaining Council”) in which they stated
that the dispute related to a unilateral change to terms and conditions of
employment.
[3] In its referral to the Bargaining Council, the Union summarised the dispute as
follows:
“
1. The company had unilaterally shifted from 6 months final warning that is
normally followed by 12 months final warning to a 6 months final warning
that is followed by dismissal.
2. The company had unilaterally combined minor offences (dis tractions) that
were starting from 6 months final warning to 12 months final warning and
then dismissal with major offences (reckless/negligent driving) that are
starting with 6 months final warning and then followed by dismissal.
3. The company had unilaterally used AFSOL System for Dis ciplinary
Purposes”
3
[4] In its answering affidavit, the Union abandoned its demand relating to
AFSOL1 cameras and footage.2
[5] Discipline at the GABS is governed by a long -standing collective agreement -
the Disciplinary Procedures Collective Agreement (“the Disciplinary
Agreement”). Although the Union is not a party to the Disciplinary Agreement,
many of its members were members of unions that were parties to the
Disciplinary Agreement.
[6] For many years, in disciplinary hearings, the applicant used footage from on-
board cameras installed on the buses to capture activity on the road and in
the bus drivers’ cab. These cameras are known as Drive- Cams. GABS has a
Drive-Cam Procedure that deals with such footage.
[7] Following an earlier arbitration between SATAWU and the applicant, the
arbitrator suspended the Drive -Cam Procedure in disciplinary hearings to
allow the parties an opportunity to agree on an addendum to the Disciplinary
Agreement and, thereby, incorporate the Drive- Cam Procedure into the
Disciplinary Agreement. However, no agreement was reached.
[8] GABS states that the Drive-Cam Procedure is not a collective agreement but
a policy document dealing only with one aspect of discipline. Therefore, it
states, the Drive-Cam Procedure cannot supersede the Disciplinary
Agreement.
[9] The Union plays coy. Nowhere does the Union state that the Drive-Cam
Procedure is a collective agreement . This is only ever implied , and only in
1 The AFSOL cameras operate on different technology to the Drive-Cam and are placed in different
locations to capture different activity – such as the issuing of tickets.
2 AA para 15
4
vague terms .3 For example, the Union submits that the applicant may not
unilaterally amend the Drive-Cam Procedure and it states that the amendment
to the Drive- Cam Procedure, through the Drive Procedure Version 2014/01,
came into existence following a strike, was consulted on with unions, and was
agreed to by employees.
[10] It is necessary to set out the relevant parts of the Drive -Cam Procedure
Version 2014/01:
“[12] Reckless/negligent/dangerous driving offences such as the failure to observe
stop signs; excessive speeds amongs t others and accidents are viewed in a
very serious light by the company and will be referred directly to major
discipline in terms of the company’s disciplinary code, even for a first offence.
[12.1] Offences specific to failure to observe a stop sign or red robot will,
following a disciplinary hearing where the employee is found guilty of the
offence, result in a 6 months final written warning for the first offence and a
12 months final warning for the second offence. In the event that employee
transgresses again while having a valid 12 months final warning, and
he/she is found guilty of the offence, their services will be terminated . This
clause 12.1 will be applicable only in respect of drive- cam offences as
mentioned in this clause”.
(own emphasis)
[11] Despite conciliation before the Bargaining Council, the dispute remain ed
unresolved. In its answering affidavit, the Union confirms its intention to
engage in strike action in relation to the dispute, though it has not yet issued a
strike notice.
3 AA para 14, particularly 14.9 (003-12 and 003-13); AA paras 28 and 29 (003-17); AA para 31 (003-
18); AA para 37 (003-19); AA para 31 (003-18);
5
[12] At the heart of the dispute is the graduated warning system contemplated by
the Drive-Cam Procedure. In that respect, the Union contends that the GABS
has changed clause 12 by moving to a six -month final written warning
followed by dismissal. The GABS denies making any such changes.
[13] The GABS contends that the dispute between it and the Union relates to the
interpretation or application of an alleged collective agreement – the Drive -
Cam Procedure. The GABS contends that sub -clause 12.1 is limited in scope
to offences relating to the alleged failure to observe a stop sign or red robot.4
[14] The GABS also contends that the dispute relates to the Disciplinary
Agreement, which is a collective agreement.
Legal issues and analysis
[15] At the hearing, the respondents did not take issue with urgency , and correctly
so given that this is the return date for interim relief already granted. The
respondents filed answering papers and attended the hearing, although they
made brief and limited submissions.
[16] It is well established that this Court is required to engage with the underlying
dispute and is not bound by the manner in which the dispute has been
formulated in the referral to conciliation.
5 The applicant contends that the
underlying dispute relates to the interpretation and application of a collective
agreement, as contemplated by section 24(1) of the Labour Relations Act No.
66 of 1995 (“the LRA”). It further contends that a collective agreement
regulates the issue in dispute. Relying on section 65(1)(c) and 65(3)(a)(i) of
the LRA, the applicant contends that the anticipated strike is unprotected. In
brief, section 65(1)(c) prohibits strike action in relation to a dispute which can
4 FA para 61 (002-22 to 002-23); FA para 100 (002-40)
5 Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v Adams and others [2000] 4 BLLR (LAC)
6
be referred to arbitration or adjudication before this court in terms of the LRA,
or any other employment law. Section 65(3)(a)(i) prohibits strike action where
the issue in dispute is regulated by a collective agreement.
[17] A collective agreement is defined in section 213 of the LRA as a written
agreement concerning terms and conditions of employment or any other
matter of mutual interest between a registered trade union (or registered trade
unions) and one or more employers (or registered employer organisations).
Notably, the definition does not require that the agreement must be signed by
the parties.
[18] In this matter, the applicant faces an insurmountable hurdle. In response to
the applicant’s allegations that the Drive- Cam Procedure is not a collective
agreement6 the Union does not deny this. 7 It appears to be common cause
that the Drive-Cam Procedure is not a collective agreement.
[19] Even if it were not common cause, the Labour Appeal Court in National Union
of Metalworkers of SA & others v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation
Ltd8 held that where the issue in dispute concerns whether there exists a
collective agreement or not, section 24 does not apply.
[20] The applicant also relies on the Disciplinary Agreement to submit that the
underlying dispute is regulated by a collective agreement or relates to its
interpretation and application . I cannot accept that. The Disciplinary
Agreement clearly does not regulate or deal with the issues in the Drive- Cam
Procedure and the underlying dispute, in my view , relates to the Drive- Cam
Procedure and its status. The Union seeks a Drive- Cam Procedure which the
6 FA paras 59.3 and 60 (002-22)
7 AA paras 21 – 33 (003-15 to 003-18)
8 [2001] ZALAC 11; (2002) 23 ILJ 895 (LAC) at para 20; see also Association of Mineworkers &
Construction Union v UASA — The Union on behalf of Members & others (2021) 42 ILJ 1893 (LAC) at
para [10]
7
applicant may not unilaterally amend. This is achievable only if the Drive- Cam
Procedure is made a collective agreement.
[21] An applicant seeking a final interdict is required to demonstrate, among other
things, a clear right to the relief it seeks . In this matter, for the reasons set out
above, the applicant failed to do so. The application falls to be dismissed. I
see no reason to make a cost order.
Conclusion
[22] In the circumstances, the application is dismissed.
RN Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
For the applicant
Adv G Leslie SC
Instructed by ENS Attorneys
For the respondents
Union official