Handling unprotected strikes can be tricky. Tensions are generally high, the workforce disgruntled and output severely disrupted. An added challenge, which is becoming more common, is created by the involvement of political parties who seek to represent their constituents in the workplace and seemingly grow their support base. This complicates the relationship between employer and employees and blurs the lines between politics and the workplace.

The courts have made it clear that, apart from possibly playing an advisory role, political parties should not become embroiled in labour disputes.  This role is reserved for trade unions and the courts have not shied away from imposing costs orders on political parties who seek to act as proxy trade unions. That the Labour Court will readily grant costs against a political party that enters into workplace disputes was confirmed in the recent judgment of Boomerang Fruits (Pty) Ltd v Umkhonto Wesizwe and Others where the court granted a costs order against the MK Party following an application to interdict an unprotected strike in which the MK Party was embroiled.

The facts

The unprotected strike followed Boomerang’s failure to pay approximately 36 packhouse staff at the appropriate overtime rate. Realising its mistake, Boomerang addressed the staff and undertook to rectify the underpayment. Even after management’s assurances that the error would be rectified, the employees, feeling disgruntled, did not report for work on the following day, prevented other employees from reporting for work and engaged in a picket, with one employee stating that they were ‘striking for MKP’.

The MK Party denied involving itself in the labour dispute and informed the Court that several employees of Boomerang had approached one of its representatives to complain about Boomerang’s failure to pay their correct wages as well as other unfair treatment. The MK Party claimed that its involvement was limited to playing an advisory role and denied inciting, participating or involving itself in the strike and picket.

This claim was not born out by the evidence that the MK Party:

• engaged with Boomerang and spoke authoritatively about the employees returning to work on settlement of the dispute;
• objected to the presence of Boomerang’s legal representatives at mediation unless the mediation was postponed to enable the MK Party to obtain legal representation;
• released a statement titled ‘MK TO LAY RACIST CHARGE AGAINST FARM OWNER’ which referenced the party’s spokesperson as the ’worker’s representative’;
• assisted some of the employees to lay these charges against Boomerang; and
• subsequent social media posts by the party stating that the workers were striking over abuse and exploitation.

The Labour Court judgment

Ultimately the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the MK Party had incited the strike and the picket. But the Court was satisfied that the MK Party assumed the role of the employees’ representative. This, the Court confirmed, is the role of trade unions and not political parties.

The Court confirmed the order of costs against the MK Party and noted that the party chose to become embroiled in the dispute. In this regard, the Court found that, not only did the MK Party participate in the unprotected action in the capacity of a proxy union, but that some of its conduct likely exacerbated matters rather than promoting a speedy resolution to the dispute.

In addition to costs, the Labour Court interdicted the MK Party from encouraging, participating in or promoting the unprotected strike in any manner whatsoever, from threatening or intimidating employees and management, and from interfering in Boomerang’s operations in any manner.

Conclusion

This decision sends a clear message to political parties not to become embroiled in labour disputes. While political parties can offer advice to their constituents, this should be the limit of their involvement.

Written by Rosalind Davey, Partner and Team Leader and Mbali Mnyandu, Associate at Bowmans Law