Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Limited and Another

A protected strike commenced on 6 May 2019 at Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Limited's farm in Grabouw, Western Cape, called by CSAAWU relating to alleged racially-based housing allocation and the treatment of seasonal workers. Initially 364 workers participated, reducing to 173 by the time of final relief. The CCMA had determined Picketing Rules prior to the strike. Oak Valley alleged the strike triggered unlawful conduct including intimidation of non-striking workers, property damage, attempted arson, and breaches of the Picketing Rules. Oak Valley sought and obtained a final interdict against CSAAWU, the individual striking workers, and initially against unidentifiable members of the public. The Labour Court granted a final interdict without requiring Oak Valley to establish a link between each individual worker and specific unlawful conduct. The Labour Appeal Court upheld this approach, stating it would be "a bridge too far" to require such a link in the "fraught context of an industrial relations dispute".

• Whether an employer seeking a final interdict against striking workers must establish a rational factual connection between each worker and the alleged unlawful conduct
• Whether mere participation in a strike during which unlawful conduct occurs is sufficient to ground interdictory relief
• What evidentiary standard applies to linking respondents to unlawful conduct in the context of strike action
• Whether the requirements for a final interdict (clear right, injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, absence of alternative remedy) require proof of a link between the respondent and the unlawful conduct

1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is upheld in part. 3. Save in respect of the 23rd applicant (Mr Magaba), paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 of the Labour Appeal Court's order are set aside. 4. There is no order as to costs in this Court.

For interdictory relief to be competently granted, a rational factual connection must be established between each individual respondent and the actual or threatened unlawful conduct. This follows from the requirement that an applicant demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of injury, which cannot be satisfied without some link between the respondent and the alleged injury. Mere participation in a strike, protest or assembly during which unlawful conduct occurs is insufficient to establish this link. However, the necessary link can be established where protesters or strikers commit unlawful conduct as a cohesive group, which will depend on the particular facts. The link need not be established by direct evidence but can be proven by circumstantial evidence and proper inferences. The principle applies equally in the industrial relations context - the "fraught context" of strike action does not justify departing from fundamental principles of the law of interdicts or diluting constitutional protections for the right to strike.

The Court observed that indiscriminate granting of interdicts carries several dangers: (1) it prejudices innocent participants through the serious imputation of unlawful conduct; (2) it has a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional rights to strike and protest, as people may be deterred from lawful participation for fear of being swept up in interdicts or contempt proceedings; (3) it undermines the value of interdicts as a means of upholding the rule of law. The Court noted with sympathy that South African courts have been "inundated" with applications arising from strike-related violence, which represents "a blight" on the industrial relations landscape. However, courts have also warned that interdict proceedings are susceptible to abuse by employers with ulterior motives. The Court remarked that with modern technology (CCTV cameras, access control systems), identifying perpetrators of unlawful conduct is "not beyond the ingenuities of employers". The Court expressed concern about the increasingly common litigation strategy whereby employers seek interdicts without laying a proper factual basis, relying on vague allegations, inadmissible hearsay, and allegations against workers "as a class" when individual participation is improbable. The Court noted (but did not disturb) the Labour Appeal Court's costs order, observing that costs do not usually follow the result in labour matters.

This judgment provides crucial guidance on the evidentiary requirements for interdicts in the context of strike action and protest. It clarifies that employers cannot obtain blanket interdicts against all striking workers based solely on their participation in a strike during which unlawful conduct occurs. The judgment balances employers' need for protection against unlawful conduct with workers' constitutional rights to strike (section 23(2)(c)) and protest (section 17). It affirms that the rule of law requires legal liability to be established against specific individuals, not imposed collectively. The judgment also addresses the chilling effect that indiscriminate interdicts can have on the exercise of constitutional rights. It establishes important principles distinguishing between isolated unlawful acts and systematic unlawful conduct by cohesive groups. The case is significant in the South African context where strike-related violence is common but where constitutional protection of collective action remains paramount.