Archive of News
What requirements must a strike notice contain?
In the recent decision of Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU, J1072/14, the Labour Court was asked to confirm an interim strike interdict, dealing with an alleged unilateral change to employment terms and conditions.
Facts of the case:
- Before the interim interdict was granted, the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and their members had referred a dispute to the bargaining council alleging a unilateral change to the employment terms and conditions of their members.
- At the same time, SATAWU gave the employer 48 hours' notice to restore the previous employment terms and conditions, failing which they would embark on a protected strike in terms of section 64(4) of the LRA.
- The 48-hour notice period then expired and the employees immediately commenced with their strike action.
| In cases of alleged unilateral changes to employment terms and conditions, section 64(4) of the LRA provides a unique and expeditious remedy to employees if the status quo is not restored. However, the court confirmed that the interim remedy to embark on a protected strike only continues until such time as a certificate of outcome is issued or until the expiry of a period of 30 days since the referral -whichever occurs first. |
- The court, in examining the facts, found that the dispute had been reconciled on 4 February 2014 and accordingly, the right to continue with the protected strike also lapsed on that day. SATAWU was therefore required to issue a fresh strike notice if it wanted to continue with the protected strike action.
- The effect of failing to do this meant that any strike action, in terms of section 64(4) of the LRA which went beyond the conciliation date of 4 February 2014, was unprotected and could therefore be stopped.
- The court also considered the clarity of the strike notice and the letter which SATAWU had relied upon as their strike notice:
- In analysing the strike notice, the court referred to the decision of Ceramic Industries Ltd t/a Better Sanitary Ware v National Construction Building and Allied Workers Union (1997) 18 ILJ 671 (LAC) in which it was held that a strike notice should be sufficiently clear to articulate the union's demands and to place the employer in a position where it can take an informed decision to resist or comply with those demands.
- The court held that neither the referral form nor the covering letter from SATAWU met these requirements, nor did it identify the terms and conditions clearly enough to avoid ambiguity on the part of the employer.
- Given this non-compliance, the court held that the employer was entitled to stop the strike.
 |
Author: Nicholas Preston is a senior associate in the employment practice at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. |
