GroundUp reports that the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has delivered an important judgment on interdicts against striking workers.
In 2019, 364 workers belonging to the Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers Union went on a protected strike at Oak Valley Farm. Before the strike began, the CCMA issued picketing rules that prohibited the workers from intimidating or threatening the farm’s customers, suppliers and non-striking employees. But acts of violence and intimidation did occur. Oak Valley then successfully obtained a temporary Labour Court order interdicting the union and 364 striking workers from acting unlawfully or violently during the strike. Many workers returned to duty, but 194 continued to strike. Oak Valley then went back to the Labour Court (LC) for a final interdict against the union and the remaining strikers. The union argued that such an interdict was too broad because it interfered with the rights of workers who picketed peacefully, and that Oak Valley had failed to show that the violence was committed by the workers and not the local community. But the LC granted a final interdict against the 194 workers and the union. The union appealed, but the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) upheld the ruling and said it was not necessary for Oak Valley to show that every worker was involved in unlawful behaviour during the strike as it was enough to show some workers had behaved unlawfully and the other workers associated with them. The union then went to the ConCourt, where Oak Valley did not oppose the appeal. The ConCourt unanimously upheld the union’s appeal and set aside the interdict against 193 workers. Justice Leona Theron said the LAC had failed to consider whether “the indiscriminate granting of interdicts prejudices innocent parties, and potentially, has a chilling effect on the exercise of their constitutional right to strike”. The ConCourt said that “where a protest or strike is substantially peaceful, but there are isolated and sporadic instances of unlawful conduct, only those protestors who associate with those acts of unlawfulness can permissibly be placed under interdict.” The interdict against one worker and the union was not set aside because there was sufficient evidence to show that they had acted unlawfully.
- Read the full original of the report in the above regard by Geoffrey Allsop at GroundUp
Get other news reports at the SA Labour News home page