Skip to main content

Article 61/2021

Labour Edge

What is the purpose of a lockout?

In Transport and Allied Workers Union of SA v Putco Ltd (2016) 37 ILJ 1091 (CC), at paragraph [32], it was held as follows in this regard:

‘The purpose of a lockout in terms of s213 is to compel employees whose trade union is party to certain negotiations to accede to an employer’s demand. Its object is to end a stalemate reached as a result of an impasse in negotiations between employer and employee in respect of matters of ‘mutual interest’. A resolution of a dispute can be reached only between adversaries. As a matter of logic, then, there must be a dispute between an employer and employees or their trade union before a lockout is instituted. Accordingly, any exclusion of employees from an employer’s workplace that is not preceded by a demand in respect of a disputed matter of mutual interest does not qualify as a lock­out in terms of s213 of the LRA.’

September 7, 2026

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

August 31, 2026

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?