Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Unprotected strike action: An ‘essential service’ in terms of the National Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (“NDMA”) is not automatically regarded an essential service terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”)
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney
Issue
Whether an essential service in terms of the NDMA is deemed an essential service for the purposes of the LRA, thus barring employees from engaging in protected strike action.
Summary
The categorisation of a sector as an essential service in terms of the NDMA does not automatically result in the sector being deemed as an essential service in terms of the LRA. While employees of essential services, as defined in terms of the LRA, are unable to engage in protected strike action this does not apply to employees of ‘essential services,’ as defined in terms of the NDMA.
Facts
In Skets Projects (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (J 546/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 99 the Labour Court considered the above issue. Skets Projects (Pty) Ltd (“Skets“) sought to interdict a strike called by the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (“Union“). The facts of the matter are briefly as follows.
Skets is engaged in the security sector and employs security officers country-wide. The Union sought organisational rights at certain of Skets’ premises. Skets refused to award organisational rights to the Union. The Union referred an organisational rights dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA“). The matter was not resolved at conciliation and the Union then issued a strike notice. Skets launched an application in the Labour Court to interdict the strike, arguing that the strike was unprotected because, firstly, that the strike notice was not clear enough and, secondly, because Skets operated as an essential service under the NDMA. As a result, the Union should be barred from engaging in strike action. It is the second argument which is considered for purposes of this note.
Labour Court’s evaluation
The Labour Court did not agree with the argument that Skets was an essential service for the purposes of section 71 of the LRA. The Labour Court found that an essential service for the purposes of the NDMA was not automatically an essential service for the purposes of the LRA. Security services have not been declared essential services in terms of the LRA. The argument, then, that the employees were barred from striking because they were employed by an ‘essential service provider’ under the lockdown regulations and directives was dismissed.
The Labour Court did, however, grant, for unrelated reasons, an interim order that the strike was unprotected and interdicted and restrained the Union and its members from supporting and / or participating in the strike.
Importance of the case A service which is declared an essential service in terms of the NDMA and the lockdown regulations is not automatically also an essential service for purposes of the LRA.
Latest News
Employee’s right to privacy
In National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and other v Rafee NO and others (2017) JOL 37705 (LC), the [...]
Don’t be intimidated into relying on a SARS interpretation note
The SARS states, on its website (www.sars.gov.za), that its "Interpretation Notes are intended to provide guidelines to stakeholders (both internal [...]
National minimum wage amendment bill, 2019
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Unathi Jukuda, Candidate Attorney On 22 February 2019 the Portfolio Committee on Labour published [...]
Is a pre-suspension hearings necessary for a precautionary suspension?
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Whether there is a requirement for a pre-suspension hearing [...]
How long is too long? Suspension of an employee pending a disciplinary process
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Mishkah Abdool Sattar, Candidate Attorney Very often, an employee is suspended while an investigation is [...]
Use it or lose it!
By Janine Hollesen, Head of Intellectual Property Practice It is important that a trade mark is used as non-use could [...]
