Legal updates and opinions
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
Pension funds distress rules & FSCA operations during lockdown
by Hilah Laskov, Senior Associate and Chelsea Roux, Candidate AttorneyReviewed by Shayne Krige, Director and head of the Investment Funds [...]
South Africa: Closure of the trade marks, designs and patents office during national lock-down
by Janine Hollesen, Director and Donvay Wegierski, Director South Africa is currently in a 21 day national lockdown to combat [...]
Not Today, April fool Protection of Personal Information – South Africa falling further and further behind
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Data Privacy Practice Group, Werksmans Attorneys and Dale Adams, Candidate Attorney With everyone [...]
Being resilient in these tough economic times is a necessity… practical steps for directors to consider in extra-ordinary times of financial distress!
by Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of the Business Rescue, Restructuring and Insolvency practice; Nastascha Harduth, Director; and Roxanne [...]
Exemptions from competition law in the banking, retail and hotel sectors amidst covid-19 pandemic
by Paul Coetser, Director and head of Competition Practice, and Mishkah Abdool Sattar, Candidate Attorney Since the issue of our [...]
Notice on compensation for occupationally-acquired novel corona virus disease (COVID-19)
by Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; Jacques van Wyk, Director, Bradley Workman-Davies, Director; and Thabisa Yantolo , Candidate Attorney On [...]
