SA Container Depots (Pty) Ltd t/a Bidvest SACD v Sheriff Durban Coastal– why violent strikes still enjoy protection.
Earlier this year the Labour Court heard an urgent application brought by SA Container Depots (SACD), a freight-handling company that operates, among other sites, at the Port of Durban. SACD asked the Court for two forms of relief. First, it wanted the strike that had erupted at its premises to be declared unprotected because it had descended into violence. Failing that, it sought an interdict to restrain the violent conduct.
How the dispute arose
In 2024 SACD undertook a large-scale retrenchment, facilitated by a CCMA commissioner. Once the process ended, the company issued termination notices to roughly one hundred employees, most of whom belonged to the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). NUMSA responded by calling a strike in terms of section 198A(8)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and demanded that all termination notices be withdrawn.
Tragically the strike soon turned violent. Several contractor employees working on the SACD site were murdered, and non-striking SACD staff were shot at near a nearby taxi rank. SACD argued that such grave misconduct rendered the strike incompatible with orderly collective bargaining and that it should therefore lose its protected status. Relying on the earlier Labour Court decision in Tsogo Sun, the company contended that a strike forfeits constitutional protection once it becomes violent.
What the Court decided
The Labour Court rejected that argument. It held that Tsogo Sun does not establish a general rule that violence automatically strips a strike of protection. Although the right to strike and the right to picket may be limited by a law of general application, the LRA contains no provision that converts a protected strike into an unprotected one merely because violence erupts.
SACD's alternative plea for an interdict also failed. The Court accepted, in principle, that interdictory relief is available where violence can be linked to the strikers, but it found that SACD had not shown a sufficient connection between the alleged acts of violence and identified NUMSA members.
Practical implications for employers
The judgment confirms that employers cannot rely on violence alone to have a strike declared unprotected. Instead, they must approach the Court for an interdict and must be prepared to prove that the violent acts are attributable to the striking workers or their union – a task made difficult because most violence takes place out of sight of witnesses or cameras.
Until the LRA is amended, employers therefore shoulder the cost of safeguarding their premises and protecting non-striking employees. Prolonged or severe violence can also deter the remaining workforce from tendering their services, potentially halting operations altogether.
A wider policy gap
Violent strikes are not a new phenomenon, yet the statutory framework still offers scant protection to employers and innocent employees caught in the cross-fire. The Court's reasoning suggests that only legislative intervention will allow a strike to lose its protected status when picket-line violence occurs.
Delays in the Labour Court may also be fuelling direct industrial action. If workers believe that retrenchment disputes will not be heard for months or years, they are more likely to resort to strikes in search of immediate relief. The combined effect of court congestion and inadequate statutory controls leaves employers, employees and the broader public exposed to criminal conduct dressed up as industrial action.
The decision in Bidvest SACD means that even the most violent strike remains protected unless and until Parliament amends the LRA. Employers must plan for that reality, investing in additional security and gathering evidence swiftly should violence break out. At the same time, lawmakers will need to balance the constitutional right to strike against the equally compelling right to safety and orderly collective bargaining – and do so sooner rather than later, before the next dispute turns deadly.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
