National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Intervalve (Pty) Ltd and Others

NUMSA represented 204 employees dismissed following an unprotected strike at shared premises used by closely associated companies: Steinmüller Africa (Pty) Ltd, Intervalve (Pty) Ltd, and BHR Piping Systems (Pty) Ltd. Although employees were employed by different entities, NUMSA initially referred an unfair dismissal dispute to conciliation citing only Steinmüller. After conciliation failed, NUMSA referred the matter to the Labour Court against Steinmüller alone. Several months later, NUMSA sought to join Intervalve and BHR as additional respondents, arguing that they were part of a single group employer and had handled the strike and dismissals collectively. The Labour Court allowed joinder, but the Labour Appeal Court overturned that decision, holding that conciliation against each employer was a jurisdictional prerequisite. NUMSA appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The Labour Appeal Court’s decision refusing joinder was upheld. No order as to costs was made.

The case authoritatively clarifies that conciliation under section 191 of the Labour Relations Act is a strict jurisdictional prerequisite and that each employer must be cited and served in the conciliation process. It limits the use of joinder to circumvent statutory preconditions and reinforces procedural discipline in unfair dismissal disputes, even where employers are closely associated or operate collectively.