, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please note that the author of this document will not responsibility for any plagiarizing you
commit.
Question 1 - Strikes
Pick n Pay workers fired over ‘strike’ they say never happened
The workers were summarily dismissed, despite their insistence that they never went on strike.
While the workers claimed this action affected 70 people; according to the retailer it was “a small
group”. The workers say that late on 10 April, they were told they had been dismissed for striking
during the lockdown. The police were called to remove them from the premises and photographs and
video footage taken by the workers show the police inside the distribution centre on the night in
question. During the lockdown, essential workers have a limited right to strike. But the workers
claim they were not striking and were simply attending a meeting called by Pick n Pay labour brokers
about an incentive agreement extended to them for continuing to work during the lockdown. The
workers concerned had apparently refused to sign the agreement, in which management had offered to
pay them a bonus of R500 at the end of April and another R500 at the end of May. At the meeting,
notices from the two labour-broking companies were handed to the workers indicating that the
distribution of food had been declared as an essential service, so it was unlawful for any workers at the
distribution centre to engage in any form of strike. “You have been told to get back to work, but you
are refusing to do so. This is your last warning,” the notices warned. The workers said the warning
— and the subsequent arrival of the police — came as a surprise to them. According to one of the
workers, they refused to sign the letter that said they had been striking. “After two hours they came
back with dismissal letters. And they call law enforcement to take us out of the premises.”
Source:
https://www.salabournews.co.za/53657-pick-n-pay-workers-fired-over-strike-they-say-never-happened
1. Read the case study, and argue whether or not these employees have participated in a strike
action.
In the context of the Pick n Pay case study, whether the workers participated in strike action can be
evaluated by examining the definition of a strike under South African labor law and comparing it to
the workers' activities. According to South Africa's Labour Relations Act (LRA), a strike is defined
as "the partial or complete concerted refusal to work, or the retardation or obstruction of work, by
persons who are or have been employed by the same employer, for the purpose of remedying a
grievance or resolving a dispute in respect of any matter of mutual interest between employer and
employee" (Labour Relations Act, Section 213).
The employees claim that they were attending a meeting, not engaging in a strike. They argue that
the gathering was called by labor brokers to discuss an incentive agreement, and they had not agreed
to strike or stop working. Instead, their refusal to sign the incentive agreement, which promised them
bonuses for continued work during the lockdown, was interpreted by management as a refusal to
work. However, the workers maintain that they were simply discussing the terms of this agreement
and had no intention of striking.
, For an action to be classified as a strike, it must meet specific conditions:
Concerted Refusal to Work: The workers must stop working collectively or obstruct the flow
of work. In this case, the workers were attending a meeting, not refusing to work directly. They
did not stop work voluntarily but were ordered to leave the premises after refusing to sign the
agreement.
Purpose of Resolving a Grievance or Dispute: The workers did express dissatisfaction with
the incentive agreement offered by Pick n Pay’s labor brokers. However, they argue that their
attendance at the meeting was not a collective action intended to remedy the situation through a
strike, but rather to negotiate or clarify the terms of the agreement.
In this scenario, the workers’ presence at a meeting with labor brokers and their refusal to sign an
agreement does not meet the strict legal definition of a strike, as outlined in the LRA. There is no
evidence of a concerted refusal to work or a collective decision to stop work in protest. Instead, the
workers were engaged in a discussion regarding their working conditions, which is a part of normal
labor-management relations. Additionally, the police involvement and sudden dismissal of the
workers indicate that the management may have misunderstood or misinterpreted the workers'
actions as a strike. The fact that the workers were handed warning letters and dismissed shortly after
refusing to sign the agreement suggests that the employer may have acted preemptively without
sufficient grounds to classify the gathering as a strike.
It is important to note that under the LRA, essential services workers, which includes those involved
in food distribution during a lockdown, are limited in their right to strike. However, if the workers
were merely attending a meeting to discuss their conditions of employment, they would not be
engaging in unlawful strike action under these provisions.
In conclusion, based on the facts presented, the workers’ actions do not seem to qualify as a strike
under South African labor law. They were attending a meeting called by their employer’s
representatives, and there was no clear evidence of a collective refusal to work or an intention to
strike. Therefore, the dismissal of these workers appears to be unjustified. The case highlights the
need for clear communication between employers and employees, especially in contexts where
workers’ rights and employment terms are being negotiated.
