Page 54 - Q&A.indd

What to do when a protected strike
turns violent?

September 2017

“A unionised grouping of my employees obtained a certificate
to go on a protected strike. However, several of my non-striking
employees have been intimidated and the striking workers
have blockaded my work entrances and damaged my fences
and trucks. I’ve asked the union to put a stop to this conduct
by their members, but nothing has happened. I recognise
the right of the employees to strike, but surely they can’t be
allowed to cause such damage?”

You are correct in that even though employees are on a protected strike,
unions and their striking members are not allowed to intimidate, act
Labour violently or cause damage or take part in other unlawful conduct whilst
striking.
To curb such conduct, employers can approach the Labour Court for
an interdict to stop the unlawful conduct of the striking employees.
When striking employees and their unions ignore such an interdict, the
employer can file an application for contempt of court with the Labour
Court against the trade union and the striking employees who fail to
adhere to the terms of the interdict.
In a recent decision by the Labour Court, the court held both the trade
union and individual striking employees in contempt of court for failing
to adhere to the court order. The court had granted an interdict against
the union and striking employees after the striking employees forcefully
removed non-striking employees from the site and intimidated them
and subcontractors from coming to work and blockading access to the
employer’s worksite. Despite the interdict, the striking workers continued
to intimidate non-striking workers and subcontractors and prevent them
from accessing the worksite. The employer then approached the court
for an order of contempt of court against the union and striking workers.

In dealing with the contempt application, the court was satisfied that
the order had been served on the trade union and individual striking
employees and that they all knew the contents of the order and their
expected compliance therewith, which they breached through their
continued conduct.
The court found that it was not necessary for an employer to establish a
link between each individual employee sought to be held in contempt

48