Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Labour Court of South Africa dismissed ArcelorMittal's application to interdict a strike by NUMSA and GIWUSA employees (excluding maintenance service employees) following mass retrenchments on 5 November 2024. The strike, initiated on 14 November 2024 after a 48-hour notice, was declared protected under section 189A(7)(b)(i) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The court ruled that the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedures do not apply to large-scale retrenchment strikes, as the LRA explicitly allows such strikes without prior conciliation. Maintenance service employees' strike was separately interdicted due to the employer's exemption from the 48-hour notice requirement under section 68(4) of the LRA.
Issues
- The court addressed whether the strike action initiated by NUMSA and GIWUSA following retrenchments is protected under the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The applicant argued the strike was unprotected due to non-compliance with the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedures. The court held that the LRA's provisions on protected strikes, particularly in the context of retrenchments, override the collective agreement, affirming the strike's protection under sections 64(1)(b) and 189A(7)(b)(i).
- The applicant contended that NUMSA must follow the collective agreement's internal dispute resolution procedures (Annexure C) before striking. The court rejected this, stating the LRA explicitly governs retrenchment disputes and does not require prior internal resolution. The judgment emphasized that parties cannot contract out of LRA protections, and the right to strike under section 189A(7)(b)(i) is not subject to the collective agreement's implied processes.
Holdings
- The court determined that the strike action by NUMSA and GIWUSA is protected under section 189A(7)(b)(i) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) because the collective agreement does not regulate mass retrenchment strikes. The applicant’s argument that the collective agreement required prior dispute resolution was rejected as inconsistent with the LRA’s procedural requirements and constitutional protections for the right to strike.
- The application for an interdict against non-maintenance service employees was dismissed, as the court found the strike is protected and the collective agreement’s dispute resolution procedures do not override the LRA’s express provisions. The applicant failed to show a prima facie case for interim relief in this category.
Remedies
The court dismissed the application to declare the strike action which commenced on 14 November 2024 unprotected, finding that the strike is protected under the Labour Relations Act (LRA). This includes the strike by NUMSA and GIWUSA members who are non-maintenance service employees.
Legal Principles
- The applicant contended that the matter was res judicata based on a previous judgment, but the court rejected this argument. The court distinguished the current case from prior judgments, noting that the previous decisions dealt with mutual interest disputes under collective agreements, whereas the current case involves a protected strike under the LRA following a facilitated retrenchment process.
- The court emphasized that collective agreements are binding and enforceable between parties as long as they do not conflict with the Labour Relations Act (LRA) or contravene public policy. The applicant argued that NUMSA failed to comply with the dispute resolution procedures outlined in the collective agreement before issuing the strike notice, but the court held that the LRA does not require such internal processes to be followed for strikes arising from large-scale retrenchments.
Precedent Name
- Transnet SOC Ltd v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union
- National Union of Metalworkers of SA and others v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd and another
- BMW South Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA obo Members
- Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa obo Ngedle and others v Unitrans Fuel and Chemical (Pty) Ltd
- Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others
- National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Intervalve (Pty) Ltd and others
- National Union of Metalworkers of SA obo Members v SAA Technical SOC Ltd
Cited Statute
- Labour Relations Act
- Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Judge Name
Makhura
Passage Text
- In the light of the agreed dispute-resolution provisions not having been followed in the manner prescribed (i.e., absence of a dispute meeting held or an agreement in writing on what process was to be followed prior to the referral), it cannot be correct as submitted on behalf of NUMSA, that these provisions were substantially complied with.
- The notice given by the employer in terms of section 189A(7)(a) of the LRA, after the 60 day period allowed for facilitation has elapsed, triggers the right of the employees or their representatives to resort to either strike action in terms of section 189A(7)(b)(i) of the LRA or litigation in terms of section 189A(7)(b)(ii) of the LRA.
- Where parties have concluded an agreement which does not deny any of the parties to the agreement the rights and obligations provided in the Act, I see no reason why that agreement cannot be enforced.