Automated Summary
Key Facts
The second and further applicants engaged in a protected strike after complying with the Labour Relations Act (LRA) procedures, including referring the dispute to the CCMA. The employer, Mandate Meal Management, issued a lock-out notice on 8 January 2002 under section 64(1)(c) of the LRA, stating no work, no pay. The strike ended on 17 January 2002, and striking workers tendered to return to work but were required to sign an agreement, which they declined. The employer retained replacement workers until 31 January 2002, allowing strikers to resume on 1 February 2002. The court dismissed the union's application, ruling the lock-out lawful as it was a protected response to non-compliance with demands.
Issues
The court addressed the legality of the employer's lock-out in the context of a protected strike by the union. The union argued the lock-out notice was not acted upon, while the employer maintained it was a valid, protected lock-out under the Labour Relations Act. The court concluded the lock-out was lawful and ongoing, dismissing the application to declare it null.
Holdings
The court dismissed the union's urgent application, ruling that the employer's lock-out was lawful and protected under the LRA. The lock-out was deemed valid as the employer provided proper notice and the union did not comply with the required agreement before the striking workers could resume duties.
Remedies
The application is dismissed as the lock-out is deemed lawful and protected under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).
Legal Principles
The court applied the purposive approach in interpreting the Labour Relations Act (LRA) to determine the legality of the employer's lock-out. It clarified that a protected lock-out under the LRA is permissible only if it complies with statutory procedures, such as excluding striking employees until they meet the employer's demands. The judgment emphasizes that the employer's actions must align with the Act's intent and that the lock-out remains protected if adhering to these requirements.
Cited Statute
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Judge Name
AA Landman
Passage Text
- 10. The only lock-out 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.
- 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.
- 11. However, when they did tender their services the employer informed them of the terms of the lock-out. That lock out is a protected one and it is one that still continuing. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.