Legal updates and opinions
Post Author
News / News
An employer’s right to use replacement labour where a lockout has been instituted
and Nyeleti Baloyi, Candidate Attorney
On 18 April 2023, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the interpretation of section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) in NUMSA v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd [2023] ZACC 11.
NUMSA’s members embarked on a strike in the form of a total withdrawal of labour that continued for several weeks. On Friday, 20 November 2020, NUMSA notified Trenstar that it decided to suspend its strike and their members will return to work on Monday, 23 November 2020, but indicated that it does not withdraw its demand (which was the cause of the strike). Shortly after receipt of this notification Trenstar gave 48 hours’ notice of its intention to lock out all NUMSA members. On Monday 23 October 2020, Trenstar proceeded to lockout NUMSA’s members and made use of replacement labour.
The issue to be decided was whether an employer may institute a lockout when at the time it was instituted, employees had already suspended their strike. The Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court both held that an employer may do so and the lockout would be regarded as a defensive lockout entitling the employer to make use of temporary labour.
The Constitutional Court differed in its approach and upheld NUMSA’s appeal by finding that Trenstar could not lawfully make use of temporary labour as at the time that the lockout actually began, NUMSA’s members were not on strike. The Court reasoned that suspending a strike merely means that the employees do not waive their unconditional right to strike which previously accrued to them, it does not mean that they continue to strike.
The right to make use of temporary labour as provided for in the LRA applies only when the use of temporary labour is in response to a strike (defensive lockout). If employees have suspended their strike, no strike action takes place, and no temporary labour may be used.
The NUMSA decision was simply an issue of timeline. The decision does not detract from employer’s ability to make use of temporary labour. The judgment should thus not cause any concern to employers who seek to exercise their collective bargaining power by locking-out. It merely confirms that the decision to lock-out and use temporary labour should flow as a consequence of an ongoing strike (defensive lockout).
For legal advice on labour disputes visit our practice area.
Latest News
South Africa’s private equity market finally has a liquidity market: The growing market for secondaries
by Dylan Cunard, Director 1. Introduction 1.1. For much of the past two decades, the conversation in South Africa’s private [...]
Will secondaries solve liquidity issues in South Africa’s private equity market?
by Dylan Cunard, Director A multi-billion dollar revolution in global private capital could arrive in South Africa. South Africa’s private [...]
Procedural certainty in business rescue: Competing commencement processes
by Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue, Brandon Starr, Senior Associate and Clio Patricios, Candidate Attorney [...]
When silence becomes complicity: Constructive dismissal, workplace bullying and the cost of doing nothing
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Constructive dismissal remains one of the more difficult claims to prove in South African labour law. [...]
Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: Mudau NO and others, [2026] 6 BLLR 628 (LC): Clarifying the operation of section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
by Bankey Sono, Director and Sandile Mogweng, Candidate Attorney The Labour Court in Nxele v Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing: [...]
No grout about it: The LAC cements section 197 principles
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act has long been one of the most misunderstood and [...]
