Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (J 793/2010) [2011] ZALAC 1; [2011] 5 BLLR 516 (LAC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1686 (LAC) (18 February 2011)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court evaluated whether the municipality sufficiently identified individual respondents (including named shop stewards) to justify a final interdict. While some individuals were identified, the applicant sought a 'blanket' order against all 10,252 workers, raising questions about the proportionality and specificity of the relief.
• The judgment addressed concerns about the prospective effect of the interdict, which would apply to future industrial actions unrelated to the specific strike in question. The court emphasized that interdicts should not act as indefinite restrictions on potential future strikes unless there's a live issue of ongoing harm at the time of confirmation.
• The court considered whether it was appropriate to confirm a prohibitory order issued during a national strike by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, given that the strike had ended by the time of the return day hearing. The applicant sought to maintain the order indefinitely, but the court noted that the conduct complained of had ceased and the industrial action was over, making the confirmation of the rule less justifiable.
• The court analyzed the legal validity of granting an indefinite interdict against 10,252 municipal workers and the union for misconduct during a protected strike. The applicant's relief sought to restrain future misconduct without a clear basis for ongoing harm, contrasting with precedents where interdicts were limited to the duration of the strike or a reasonable period afterward.

Holdings

• The applicant (Ekhurhuleni Municipality) was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs for the hearing on the return day (21 May 2010).
• The first respondent (SAMWU) was ordered to pay the applicant's costs for the interim relief application (15 April 2010) and the preparation of the replying affidavit (15 May 2010), including the costs of two counsel.
• The court discharged the rule nisi issued on 15 April 2010 because the national strike had ended by the return day (21 May 2010), and the relief sought (an indefinite interdict) was not justified when the alleged misconduct was no longer ongoing. The court emphasized that interdicts should not be granted indefinitely without a continuing threat of harm.

Remedies

• The applicant must pay the first respondent's costs of preparation and argument for the hearing on the return day.
• The rule nisi issued on 15 April 2010 is discharged.
• The first respondent must pay the applicant's costs of applying for the interim relief and preparing its replying affidavit, including the costs of two counsel.

Legal Principles

• The applicant was required to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the interdict, which it partially achieved by identifying specific individuals involved in misconduct. However, the court found the general 'blanket' order unjustified due to insufficient evidence of ongoing threats.
• The judgment addressed costs allocation, determining the applicant should recover costs for the interim order and replying affidavit but bear the respondent's costs for the return day hearing, reflecting the court's assessment of the parties' conduct and the unresolved issues in the case.
• The court discussed the conditions for confirming an interim interdict, emphasizing that such orders should not be granted indefinitely if the industrial action and associated misconduct have ceased. It referenced cases like Woolworths v SACCAWU and Polyoak v Chemical Workers Industrial Union to highlight the necessity of a live issue and proper identification of respondents to justify a final order.

Precedent Name

• Libanon Gold Mining Co Ltd & others v National Union of Mine Workers & another
• Polyoak (Pty) Ltd v Chemical Workers Industrial Union & others
• Castel NO v Metal & Allied Workers Union
• Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v SACCAWU & Others

Cited Statute

• Regulation of Gatherings Act
• Internal Security Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 31] I have similar concerns to those voiced in the Polyoak decision about the effect of the relief sought in this matter, and for that reason I decline to confirm the order. I must emphasise however, that had the strike action been unresolved by the return day, I would not have hesitated to confirm the rule for a reasonable duration.
• 28] In the case of Polyoak (Pty) Ltd v Chemical Workers Industrial Union & others (1999) 20 ILJ 392 (LC), the court was asked to confirm an interim order, amongst other things restraining unlawful conduct by striking employees for an indefinite period. Brassey, AJ held: 'The fourth prayer I consider improper is an open-ended one, that is, one that binds the respondents for a period whose duration is indefinite and potentially unlimited... The unlimited operation of a sword of Damocles... is more than simply undesirable, it is legally wrong.'