Not my strike, still my problem

By Gillian Lumb, Director, Anli Bezuidenhout, Senior Associate and Brynn Travill, Candidate Attorney, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr


May a company interfere in a labour dispute to which it is not a party if the dispute results in violent strike action adversely affecting its business operations?


Strike action can often turn violent. Violence, in addition to the withdrawal of labour, is used to force the employer to meet the employees’ demands. In the process, the employer’s property is frequently damaged. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are sometimes drawn into the dispute and affected by the violence. This scenario, and one of the options available to third parties, was addressed in the judgment of South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd v Professional Transport & Allied Workers Union of South Africa AKA PTAWU [2017] ZAGPJHC 178.


The South African Breweries (SAB) is one of South Africa’s premier brewers and leading distributors of beer. SAB implemented an owner-driver scheme in terms of which it contracted with drivers previously employed by it to transport its products. The drivers owned and operated their own trucks and distributed SAB’s products from its various depots to retail outlets. The drivers employed their own staff, consultants and crew. The crew members were members of the Professional Transport & Allied Workers Union of South Africa (PTAWU). PTAWU demanded that the drivers employ a fourth crew member, in addition to the usual three. The drivers refused and a strike ensued. 


The strike turned violent quickly. A truck owner was attacked while making deliveries and a truck was vandalised. During the attack, SAB’s product was thrown off the truck. In addition to the violence and damage to SAB’s product, PTAWU sent an email warning SAB that should they continue with their strike action, it would affect SAB’s normal business operations. SAB was forced to engage a private security firm to escort the drivers when delivering SAB’s products and in this way, protect its product. Needless to say, SAB incurred substantial financial costs in doing so. 


SAB applied to the High Court seeking an urgent interdict against PTAWU and its representative. The PTAWU representative argued that SAB had no right to the relief or to act on behalf of the truck owners. He further argued that the truck owners should have approached the court to demand protection of their trucks against damage by their employees.


In considering the matter, the court had regard to the Constitution and found that it provides for a right to strike and protest peacefully. The reason for this being, at least in part, to protect private and public property from damage or destruction by those participating in a strike. The court held that valuable property warrants protection, whether at the workplace or elsewhere and that despite SAB not having a contractual or employment relationship with the members of PTAWU, it was entitled to protect its product from further damage by those involved in the strike. 


Contrary to the PTAWU representative’s argument that only the truck owners could seek relief, the court granted SAB’s application to protect its product from further damage by the strikers and in so doing, protect its business operations. The relief included interdicting and restraining PTAWU from encouraging its members to interfere with, threaten or intimidate drivers’ employees, contractors or representatives while engaging in strike action and encouraging its members to damage SAB’s products. 


The judgment confirms a company’s right to seek assistance from the courts when its property is being damaged or its business adversely affected by a violent strike in which it plays no role. As with every strike, we recommend that any company impacted by violent strike action keeps a strike diary and takes photographs of any violent conduct. In this instance, SAB’s foresight in taking photos and submitting these to court as evidence proved invaluable in establishing the nature and extent of the damage caused to its product.


For more information, please contact Gillian Lumb at or Anli Bezuidenhout at

Article published with the kind courtesy of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com








Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops





 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play