Wiseman Khuzwayo
Cosatu maintained that trade unions could not be held liable for damages by opportunists on the fringes of a demonstration, national spokesman Patrick Craven said yesterday.
He was responding to a landmark judgment that has serious implications for trade union activities in which the Constitutional Court yesterday upheld earlier judgments that the SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) was liable for damages suffered by victims during a violent march by the union in Cape Town.
This was a confirmation of earlier judgments by the Western Cape High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Craven said Cosatu would be studying the judgment.
He said the labour federation hoped it had convinced the ANC in its bilateral discussions with the ruling party that the amendment in the labour laws that upheld this liability did not belong to the labour legislation regime but in the public order arena. He added that the vast majority of labour marches were peaceful.
National Union of Metalworkers of SA spokesman Castro Ngobese said: “We will study the judgment for its merits and demerits. We will pursue other avenues to make sure the judgment is challenged because it will cripple the unions’ coffers.”
Business Unity SA welcomed the judgment. “Organisers of gatherings, including those which are linked to employment-related concerns, should be expected to make contingency plans to avoid collateral damage of the kind identified by the court,” it said.
The judgment is an unexpected gift for the government which has been trying to legislate for the principle of liability in the Labour Relations Amendment Bill.
Satawu is an affiliate of Cosatu, which has been vocal in its opposition to the government’s bill.
The judgment is also a victory for the DA, which has been fighting for a Private Members Bill for the past two years that would hold all unions liable for damage caused to property during strikes.
The bill’s sponsor, Ian Ollis, described the judgment as a massive victory that would help to hold Cosatu to account for its actions.
“For too long, Cosatu and its affiliates have been allowed to engage in violent and chaotic strikes without any repercussions. This ruling sets a precedent that will force them to keep better discipline at marches, pickets and strikes,” he said.
The case was brought by various individuals, including street vendors, shop and vehicle owners.
Satawu had organised a gathering of thousands of people through Cape Town in a wage strike in May 2006.
About 50 people had lost lives in the course of the protracted strike before the gathering. During the gathering, much damage was caused to city and private property.
The case was brought in terms of a section of the Regulation of Gatherings Act, which allows victims to claim for what is called “riot damage” against an organisation on whose behalf or under whose auspices the unruly gathering was held.
Under this act, an organisation would not be held liable if it proved it did not commit or connive at the conduct causing the damage, the conduct in question does not fall within the objectives of the gathering concerned, was not reasonably foreseeable, and if the organiser took all reasonable steps within its power to prevent the conduct in question.
Satawu contended in the three courts that the requirements of the section were unconstitutional because they infringed the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and fair labour practice.
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court held that the law aimed to afford victims effective recourse where a gathering became destructive and resulted in loss of property, injury or death.
It held that the defence provided for by the law was viable and the limitation on the right to freedom of assembly in section 17 of the constitution was reasonable and justifiable.
It served an important purpose and reasonably balanced the conflicting rights of organisers, potential participants and often vulnerable and helpless victims of a gathering or a demonstration which degenerated into violence.