At the point at which an employer wants to interdict the reach of political parties in the workplace, they will always face the question of which court to approach. This is because the failure to approach the correct court has disastrous effects – as the application will not be considered by the court where it does not have jurisdiction. This is precisely what occurred in the recent case of CCI South Africa (Pty) Ltd v ANCYL and Others which was considered by the LAC. The judgment was handed down on 6 March 2024.

The ire of CCI management was provoked, and the company was prompted to seek an interdict, after they came across a leaflet bearing the African Nation Congress Youth League (ANCYL) logo, along with Facebook posts and WhatsApp voice notes, demanding CCI’s shutdown and listing various employment-related issues. On 15 February 2022 CCI then obtained an interim interdict from the Labour Court, against the ANCYL. Shortly thereafter, on 23 February 2022, CCI was notified of a second proposed march to its premises, which was scheduled to begin at a public area and end at CCI’s premises. The ANCYL secured permission to march to CCI South Africa’s offices under the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 (RGA). The march, scheduled for 25 February 2022, was publicised through various channels, including newspaper articles, posters and flyers, with demands outlined and a call for public participation in the upcoming march to CCI’s offices. CCI sought an interdict against the ANCYL, arguing that the ANCYL’s participation was in breach of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as it was not a registered union.

The ANCYL objected to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and also argued that the march was not a strike, protest action, or conduct in furtherance of either, as employees continued to work. The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, which decision was upheld on appeal for the following reasons:   

• The absence of an employment relationship between CCI and the ANCYL.
• The authorisation of the march under the RGA.
• The lack of CCI employees seeking assistance from the ANCYL (which is very different from the other cases referred to above).
• The absence of the involvement from a trade union.
• The court acknowledged that the almost exclusive focus on labour issues did not inherently categorise the march as a matter governed by employment laws.
• The court affirmed that under section 17 of the Constitution, individuals can protest against labour right violations as long as it is conducted lawfully under the RGA. However, if such protests involve employees and their unions, they must adhere to the provisions of employment law. The court again endorsed its earlier decision in ADT Security (Pty) Ltd v National Security And Unqualified Workers Union (NSUWU) and Others [2015] 36 ILJ 152 (LAC) to highlight that protests authorised under the RGA can be interdicted by the Labour Court where they are circumventing the provisions of employment law.
• If the protest falls within the scope of employment law, an interdict is to be sought from the Labour Court. If not, the RGA applies and only the High Court would have jurisdiction to interdict.

Where does this leave employers who are faced with politicians at their gates?

The LAC accepted the existing principle that political parties are permitted to assist in employment matters in an advisory capacity. So, there is no blanket objection to a political party showing up. If the matters are squarely employment law related and the political party is representing the interests of workers, the audience of the Labour Court may be sought. Where it is not a clear employment law matter and there is no authorisation under the RGA, the audience of the High Court will need to be engaged.

In short, in the heat of the moment when faced with an emotionally charged and escalating situation it is vital to properly understand the issues at the heart of the dispute to determine how to best to deal with the issues at hand and which court to approach, if this becomes necessary because, as was the case in CCI South Africa, the approach to the incorrect court meant that the ANYCL was eventually entitled to continue to make its advance to the workplace.