On Legal Matters, we talk to Kenneth Coster, Partner at Webber Wentzel, about the Constitutional Court judgment bringing finality to the meaning of "in response to a strike" when employers use replacement labour during a lock-out. The case was about the lawfulness of the interpretation of section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which prohibits employers from using replacement labour during a lock-out unless the lock-out is in response to a strike. The union contended that the employer could not lawfully implement a lock-out where the employees had decided to suspend a proposed strike in response to which the lock-out notice had been issued. Kenneth clarifies what the implication of judgement means.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.