Is it a requirement that a strike must actually start before a lockout can be lawfully implemented?
In Technikon SA v National Union of Technikon Employees of SA (2001) 22 ILJ 427 (LAC), at paragraph , the following was stated:
‘S64 also does not say that once employees have given notice to strike or once they have begun with their strike before the employer can either give its notice to lockout or can institute its lockout, the employer can no longer exercise its recourse to lockout under s64(1) even if all the requirements have been met. Equally, there is no provision to the effect that, if the employer has given the notice to lockout first or has begun with its lockout before the employees can begin with their strike or can give their notice to strike, the employees lose their right to strike. This, therefore, means that a lockout may commence before, simultaneously with, or, after, a strike has commenced. It also means that a lockout and a strike can run concurrently between the same parties. What this would mean in practice is that the strikers would be excluded from the premises of the employer.’
The institution of review proceedings does not suspend the operation of an arbitration award unless security is furnished to the satisfaction of the court in terms of s145(8) of the LRA. On what basis did the labour appeal court recently resolve the conflict between various labour court judgments interpreting the stay of enforcement of arbitration awards pending review proceedings?
What are the requirements to be met for s158(1)(c) of the LRA to be applicable (dealing with the jurisdiction of the labour court) to make an arbitration award or settlement agreement an order of court?