---

VIC & DUP/JOHANNESBURG/LKS

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

DATE: 31 August 1998 CASE NO. J2307/98

In the matter between:

NEW TYRE MANUFACTURERS EMPLOYERS

ASSOCIATION Applicant

and

NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF

SOUTH AFRICA Respondent

J U D G M E N T

LANDMAN, J:

[1] The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and their members intend to call a secondary strike in the tyre industry tomorrow - 1 September. The New Tyre Manufacturers Employers' Association has applied to this court to interdict the strike on various grounds. In terms of section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 an applicant who seeks relief in this court by way of an interdict of a secondary strike is obliged to give notice to the other side. This court may not grant an order unless 48 hours notice of the application has been given to the respondent. However, section 68(2) goes on to provide that the court may permit a shorter period if three conditions are met. First, the applicant has given written notice to the respondent of the applicant's intention to apply for the granting of an order; secondly, the respondent has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a decision concerning that application is taken; and lastly, the applicant has shown good cause why a period shorter than 48 hours should be permitted.

[2] In this particular matter there are four major tyre manufacturers involved who are all members of the applicant association. Bridgestone/Firestone says that it received no formal notification of the intended secondary strike called for by NUMSA. It says, however, it received verbal notification. But it does not say when it received this. It could have been any time between 21 August and today's date.

[3] Dunlop says it received notification of the intended strike on 24 August 1998. It sent off a letter on 27 August wanting confirmation that the employees would not strike. It did not receive any reply. It is not clear when it was decided that it was necessary to proceed with this application, but presumably it was only done this morning.

[4] Gentyre also received a notification of the proposed strike on 24 August 1998. It spoke to its employees and was informed on 28 August that they were going to strike. Goodyear also received a notice on 24 August. It spoke to its employees and shop stewards on 26 August and it seems to have been told that there was

not going to be a strike. That situation appears to have changed. We are not told when Goodyear was informed that the strike was going to go ahead.

[5] It follows that the applicant has not set out good cause why less than a 48 hour period should be permitted. It did not seek to notify the respondents other than at about 12:00 or 13:00 today that it was going to apply for this particular relief. It may be, as was argued by Mr Redding, that the applicant has a good case and that the respondent has no case. Unfortunately I am not in a position to judge that because the applicant has not given the respondent an adequate opportunity of being heard.

[6] In these circumstances the application cannot be heard because the application does not conform to section to 68(2). The application is consequently struck off the roll and the applicant is to pay the costs.

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : ADV A I S REDDING

Instructed by : Deneys Reitz

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : ADV H VAN DER RIET

Instructed by : Cheadle Thompson & Haysom

DATE OF HEARING : 31 AUGUST 1998

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31 AUGUST 1998

---