ConCourt provides clarity on protected strike damages claim
The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide a claim for compensation for loss linked to conduct that occurs during a protected strike, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday.
According to Business Day, the judgment providing crucial clarity on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was decided in the case of Massmart Holdings, a wholesale giant with over 300 stores, against the SA Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (Saccawu).
Massmart went to court seeking compensation of over R9m for losses allegedly suffered as a result of ‘unlawful’ conduct by the union’s members during the protected strike in 2021.
The union lost the jurisdiction case at the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court, and appealed to the top court.
The effect of the Constitutional Court judgment is that Massmart will have to initiate its claim in a High Court for the matter to be decided on its merits.
The judgment of the top court deals only with the jurisdiction question and not the damages claim. Massmart said the union’s picketers blocked store entrances and damaged property, resulting in stores being closed and losses of over R9m.
It pinned the litigation on 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, which empowers the court with jurisdiction to order payment of just and equitable compensation for any loss attributable to an unlawful strike.
-GA-
In a majority judgment written by Justice Steven Majiedt, the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the union.
‘Section 68(1) only applies to those cases where an employer is seeking relief pursuant to the employees’ participation in an unprotected strike or the employees’ participation in conduct in support of an unprotected strike. It most certainly does not apply to protected strikes,’ Majiedt said.
For the Labour Court to decide on the R9m damages claim it had to be an unprotected strike.
‘If the legislature had intended to grant jurisdiction to the Labour Court in respect of delictual conduct in support of a protected strike, section 67 would have been the place to do it, yet it is not there. Of course, this does not take away the employer’s right to claim damages in delict for such conduct if it is criminal ….’
The appeal was upheld and the order of the Labour Appeal Court was set aside, reports Business Day.
Saccawu deputy general secretary Jerry Mmoneri described the judgment as protection of the rights of workers.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
