National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others

The first appellant is a registered trade union representing employees at the respondents' plants in Howick, KwaZulu-Natal. On 4 July 2012, the union referred a labour dispute to the CCMA which remained unresolved, leading to the issuance of a certificate of outcome. The union gave notice of strike action and authorised a picket outside the respondents' premises. On 22 August 2012, the picket allegedly became violent, resulting in property damage. The Labour Court issued an order restraining unlawful acts and prohibiting picketing within 50 metres of the premises. Between 22 August and 27 September 2012, various acts of violence occurred causing damage to property. On 23 May 2013, the respondents sued the appellants for riot damage under section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993. The appellants defended on the basis that the picket was authorised under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), that the Gatherings Act did not apply, and that they enjoyed immunity under section 67(2) of the LRA.

• Whether a picket authorised by a registered trade union pursuant to section 69 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 constitutes a 'gathering' to which section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 applies
• Whether there is a conflict between the provisions of the LRA and the Gatherings Act regarding pickets in furtherance of protected strike action
• Whether the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from conduct during a picket authorised under the LRA

1. The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. 2. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following order: '1. An authorised picket in terms of s 69(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is not a gathering to which s 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 is applicable. 2. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs of the preparation and argument of the special case, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.'

A picket authorised by a registered trade union pursuant to section 69 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 is not a 'gathering' to which section 11 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 applies. The LRA provides comprehensive regulation of picketing as conduct in furtherance of protected strike action. Where the legislature provides specialised provisions to deal with a particular area of legal relations, they are to be applied in preference to general provisions covering the same or similar relations. Later legislative enactments which manifestly intend to regulate the whole subject matter are to be applied within their own sphere of operation to the exclusion of earlier provisions. Section 69(2) of the LRA, which states that a picket may be held 'despite any law regulating the right of assembly', signifies that the convening of pickets is regulated exclusively by the LRA. Claims for loss attributable to conduct committed during the course of a picket authorised under the LRA fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 68 of the LRA.

The court made strong observations about the four-year delay by Van Zyl J in delivering judgment, stating: 'A four-year delay in the delivery of a judgment constitutes an unconscionable dereliction of duty on the part of the judge. It is a matter which ought to enjoy the consideration of the Judge President of the Division concerned.' The court noted that the judge provided no explanation for the delay and that the prejudice caused by such delay in determining an antecedent legal issue was manifest. The court emphasized that judges are held accountable for the administration of justice through their judgments and that reasonable explanations for delays should be provided. The court also noted that it was unnecessary to consider the second question relating to the availability of defences under section 67 of the LRA given its conclusion on the primary issue.

This judgment clarifies the relationship between the Labour Relations Act and the Regulation of Gatherings Act in South African law. It establishes that the LRA provides a comprehensive legislative framework for labour relations, including picketing during strike action, which operates to the exclusion of the general provisions of the Gatherings Act. The case affirms the principle that specialised legislation takes precedence over general legislation within its sphere of operation. It reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over matters arising from conduct during protected strike action and pickets. The judgment is significant for defining the boundaries between labour law and general public order legislation, ensuring that labour disputes are resolved within the specialist labour law framework. It also serves as an important precedent for statutory interpretation, particularly regarding the interaction between general and specific legislation enacted at different times. The case provides certainty for trade unions regarding their liability when organizing pickets in support of protected strikes.