National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Thyden Steel CC and Another (J1813/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 442

14th November 2014

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Thyden Steel CC and Another (J1813/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 442

Introduction:

[1]        On 29 July 2014, the Honourable Lagrange J issued an order in the following terms:

“Having read the documents and having considered the matter:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The provisions of the Rules relating to times and manner of service referred to therein are dispensed with and the matter is dealt with as one of urgency in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules for the conduct of proceedings in the Labour Court.

2. A rule nisi is issued calling upon the First & Second Respondents to appear and show cause on 06 November 2014 why an order should not be granted in the following terms:

2.1       Declaring that the transfer of the machinery and equipment of the First Respondents and the First Respondents customers by the First Respondent to the Second Respondent constitutes a transfer of a going concern as contemplated by section 197 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended (the LRA);

2.2       Directing the Second Respondent to employ the Second to Further Applicants on the same terms and conditions they enjoyed under the employ of the First Respondent;

2.3       Directing the Second Respondent to employ the Second to Further Applicants immediately and retrospective to their date of dismissal by the First Respondent if their employment contracts have already been terminated by the First Respondent;

2.4       In the event that they are still employed by the First Respondent, directing the Second Respondent to employ the Second to Further Applicants immediately when the First Respondent terminates their employment contracts;

3.    The provisions of paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 will operate with immediate effect as an interim order pending a final order being made on the return day of the rule nisi.”

[2]        On the return date, notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants had indicated their intention to discharge the rule nisi as issued above, the Second Respondent persisted in seeking an order of costs, which is the only only issue for determination in this matter.