Labour Court judge rejected Mister Sweet application to interdict striking workers and dismissed it without costs.
The attempt by Premier FMCG to obtain an urgent interdict against the striking workers who are demanding a R19,500 living wage has been dismissed by the Johannesburg Labour Court.
The applicant, Premier FMCG which was also acting on behalf of non-striking workers, sought relief to protect the business and non-striking workers from what it called acts of intimidation, assaults, and threats. The court revealed that the general secretaries of Food and Allied Workers Union (Fawu) and UCIMESHAWU wrote letters to the company complaining that they were concerned about the safety of their union members who were not striking.
“In the present circumstances, the applicant (employer) does not present any factual basis on which this court can find that the individual respondents (workers) are acting as a cohesive group. Nor as previously mentioned, is there any basis to accept that any of the respondents have associated themselves with misconduct. In the circumstances there is no basis to grant final relief,” said judge Reynaud Daniels.
“There must be a factual link between the individual respondent and the actual or threatened unlawful conduct. Mere participation in a strike or protest in which there is unlawful conduct is insufficient to link the impugned respondent to such unlawful conduct in a manner sufficient for interdictory relief,” he said
Both Fawu and United Chemical Industries Mining Electrical State Health and Aligned Workers Unions (Umcimeshawu) are organising at Mister Sweet, but are currently not majority unions. The striking workers who are part of the 294 respondents in the present matter are not unionised workers but are supported by Simunye Workers Forum and Casual Workers Advise Office (CWAO).
The non-striking workers allege that they have been threatened or assaulted but were unable to identify any of the perpetrators. According to their submission the perpetrators were unknown, but their speculation was that they were acting on behalf of the striking workers. The labour court was not satisfied with this line of argument since there was no conclusive proof or reasonable inference to that effect.
The applicant alleged that one of the striking workers posted on Facebook: “Gents where are you, I do not beg, come lets drink my provident fund of R300,000 and now I am going to be a killer”.
“Accordingly the real question is whether the applicant can demonstrate that the respondents are directly or indirectly responsible for the threats, intimidation or assaults of non-strikers,” said judge Daniels.
The strike started on the 19th of August and is in its fourth week with solidarity organisations calling for the boycotting of Mister Sweet products. The factory produces gums, jellies, marshmallows, licorice, chocolate-coated treats, and other sweets.
en