Case Study: SACTWU v Yarntex and Its Impact on Strike Actions in South Africa's Textile Industry

Source: Fashion Ghana

On 17 March 2025, a group of South African fashion designers staged a public demonstration in Sandton, Johannesburg, to protest against the proliferation of illicit trade in the fashion and textile sector—a protest that sparked renewed national conversations about the rights of workers and creatives to engage in lawful industrial action. In light of this, our case analysis revisits a pivotal 2010 judgment handed down by the Labour Court of South Africa: South African Clothing & Textile Workers Union (SACTWU) and Another v Yarntex (Pty) Ltd t/a Bertrand Group (P175/09) [2010] ZALC 64; (2010) 31 ILJ 2986 (LC).

This case, though decided over a decade ago, remains a cornerstone in understanding the limits and protections afforded to workers under South African labour law, particularly within the fashion and textile industry. It examines whether the dismissal of factory workers at Yarntex, a subsidiary of the Bertrand Group, was lawful in response to their participation in a strike. More broadly, it interrogates the conditions under which a strike is considered protected, the procedural fairness of dismissals, and the balance between the constitutional right to strike and an employer’s interest in maintaining order and compliance within the collective bargaining framework.

As this recent Sandton protest illustrates, the questions raised in SACTWU v Yarntex continue to resonate. The judgment serves not only as a legal precedent but as a lens through which we can assess the evolving intersection of labour rights, industrial action, and the regulatory structures that govern South Africa’s fashion and textile economy.

Key Legal Frameworks

1. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – Section 23: Guarantees every worker the right to fair labour practices, including the right to form and join trade unions, participate in collective bargaining, and engage in strike action.

2. Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA): Provides the statutory framework for collective bargaining, the regulation of industrial action, and the protection of workers' rights, while also delineating the procedural requirements for lawful strikes.

3. National Textile Bargaining Council (NTBC) Constitution: Establishes the rules governing negotiations and industrial action within South Africa’s textile sector, including jurisdictional constraints related to bargaining levels.

4. NTBC Transitional Agreement: A binding agreement which sets out specific transitional terms regarding dispute resolution, bargaining structures, and strike procedures applicable to member employers and unions during a defined adjustment period.

   
   

Background and Facts

The dispute arose when employees of Bertrand Group (Pty) Ltd, specifically those in the Spinners sub-section, embarked on a strike action demanding plant-level wage increases. The workers, all members of the South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (SACTWU), were employed at a factory affiliated with the National Textile Bargaining Council (NTBC), a centralised body that governs labour relations across the textile industry.

The strike followed a deadlock in the 2008/2009 wage negotiations for the Worsted section, where Bertrand, classified as a non-metropolitan employer, had historically paid 80% of the gazetted minimum wage. SACTWU sought to eliminate this long-standing concession, demanding a full 100% wage rate. When talks failed, tensions escalated.

However, the strike was deemed procedurally defective under the NTBC Constitution. The governing framework only recognises collective bargaining and associated industrial action at the section or sub-sector level—in this case, the Worsted section. It explicitly prohibits plant-level or sub-unit-specific strike action, thereby rendering the Spinners’ strike outside the bounds of lawful protest.

This was also not the first illegal strike by the employees. Earlier in 2008, they had engaged in two prior unprotected strikes over different grievances, for which they received written and final warnings, along with explicit notice that any repetition could lead to dismissal.

Despite this, the union did not challenge the disciplinary measures taken at the time nor clearly distance itself from the September strike. In response to the strike, the employer issued a final return-to-work ultimatum. When the workers failed to comply, they were summarily dismissed without any formal disciplinary process or hearings.

This led to the legal question at the heart of the case: whether the dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair, given both the unlawful nature of the strike and the lack of individual hearings prior to termination.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issue was whether the strike in question qualified as protected industrial action under the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Section 64 of the LRA outlines the conditions required for a strike to be protected. These include that the issue in dispute must have been referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the relevant bargaining council, that a certificate of non-resolution must have been issued, and that a minimum of 48 hours’ notice must have been given to the employer before the commencement of strike action.

Although there had been previous conciliation attempts in this matter, the court held that the strike did not enjoy protected status. This was primarily because it took place at the plant or sub-section level, a scope not recognised within the framework of the National Textile Bargaining Council (NTBC) Constitution or its Transitional Agreement. The court reaffirmed that any prior practice of engaging in plant-level discussions could not override the express limitations set by the NTBC Constitution. It further reiterated that the Constitution and the LRA allow for certain limitations on the right to strike, provided these restrictions serve a legitimate purpose and do not undermine the fundamental goal of collective bargaining.

Another central issue was whether the applicants’ constitutional right to strike had been infringed. Section 23(2)(c) of the Constitution guarantees every worker the right to strike. However, the court emphasised that this right is not unlimited. The LRA, as legislation of general application, imposes both procedural and substantive requirements for the lawful exercise of this right. The court found that the limitations placed on strike action through the NTBC Constitution were both reasonable and necessary to preserve coherent, industry-wide bargaining. It explained that allowing sub-section or plant-level strikes could result in fragmented and unstable bargaining structures. As such, the applicants' argument that their constitutional rights had been violated was rejected.

The final issue was whether the dismissal of the workers was substantively and procedurally fair in terms of the LRA. On the question of substantive fairness, as governed by Section 188, the employer contended that the strike was unlawful and that workers had been adequately warned through a series of written ultimatums. In contrast, the applicants maintained that they were uncertain about the legality of the strike, were acting in a context of confusion, and lacked proper legal guidance. The court accepted that while the strike was indeed unlawful, the employer’s rigid stance may not have been appropriate given the complexity of the situation. It noted that the NTBC’s layered bargaining structures could have created ambiguity for workers, and the union’s failure to effectively communicate the consequences of continued participation further complicated matters. The court concluded that the dismissals may have lacked substantive fairness due to the employer’s insufficient consideration of these mitigating factors.

Regarding procedural fairness, the employer did not conduct formal disciplinary hearings but argued that it had provided ample warning, issued several ultimatums, and informed the workers of the potential consequences. The applicants responded by arguing that they had not been given adequate time to seek legal counsel, were not individually identified, and were effectively punished as a group without proper consideration of their individual circumstances. The court held that although formal hearings are not strictly necessary in cases of mass dismissals arising from strike action, certain baseline procedural standards must still be observed. These include making an effort to distinguish between active participants and non-participants and ensuring that all employees are clearly informed of the seriousness of the situation. In this case, the employer failed to meet those standards, and the court therefore found that the dismissals were procedurally unfair.

Union Conduct: Role of SACTWU and Xola

The court also scrutinised the role of the South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (SACTWU), particularly the conduct of its official, Xola. It was found that Xola had failed in several critical respects that contributed to the workers’ continued participation in the unprotected strike. Notably, he did not request an extension of time from the employer, Bertrand Group, when such a request might have provided a vital cooling-off period. His testimony during the proceedings was marked by inconsistencies and evasiveness, particularly regarding the sequence of events and communications. More significantly, Xola failed to effectively communicate the legal implications of the strike to the union members. This lack of clarity and guidance from union leadership left many workers unaware of the serious consequences of their continued involvement. The court concluded that the union’s negligence in discharging its responsibilities played a substantial role in the escalation and fallout of the dispute.

Key Precedents and Principles Upheld

The court’s decision reinforced several important legal principles. First, it established that a practice or tacit agreement at the plant level cannot override a formal constitution that outlines clear bargaining structures. In this case, the NTBC Constitution, which governs bargaining at the section or sub-sector level, prevailed over any informal practices at the plant level.

The court also emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in strike-related dismissals. It underscored that employers must provide at least a clear and fair ultimatum, time for workers to reflect, and the opportunity to make representations. The case further highlighted the need for employers to identify individual participants in a strike, where possible, to avoid imposing collective punishment on workers who may not have actively participated.

Finally, the court affirmed that while the South African Constitution guarantees the right to strike, this right is not absolute. Strike rights are subject to limitations under laws of general application, particularly the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which places procedural and substantive restrictions on when and how workers can exercise this right.

Outcome and Relief Granted

The Labour Court ruled that the dismissals were unfair, both substantively and procedurally. However, despite this finding, the court did not order the reinstatement of the dismissed workers. This was due to the unlawfulness of the strike action and the workers' refusal to comply with the employer's ultimatum to return to work.

Instead of reinstatement, the court awarded the dismissed workers compensation. Specifically, the workers were granted three months' remuneration as compensation for the unfair dismissal, acknowledging the procedural and substantive failings in how the dismissals were handled by the employer.

Implications for Labour Relations in the Fashion and Textile Industry

The case underscores several important implications for labour relations within the fashion and textile industry, particularly regarding the adherence to formal bargaining structures. Employers and unions must respect the bargaining levels established by collective agreements and the constitutions of bargaining councils. This case illustrates that even where informal practices have been followed in the past, they cannot override the formal structures set in place by these governing documents.

Procedural justice is crucial, even in cases where a strike is unprotected. Employers must ensure that dismissals are conducted with procedural safeguards in place, which include issuing ultimatums, providing clear communication, and allowing reasonable time for compliance. This ensures that workers' rights are respected throughout the process.

Unions also have a significant responsibility in this regard. They must act in the best interests of their members, ensuring that workers receive accurate legal advice and that timely interventions are made when issues arise during strikes. This duty extends to the accurate communication of the legal implications of strike action and its potential consequences.

Furthermore, the case sets a precedent for compensation in mass dismissals. Where reinstatement is deemed impractical due to the unlawful nature of the strike, compensation may be awarded if procedural unfairness is proven, as was the case here.

Finally, the case reinforces the authority of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), particularly in relation to sectoral and sub-sectoral bargaining frameworks. It affirms that these formal frameworks take precedence over any informal practices or expectations that may exist within the industry.

Conclusion

This case highlights the intricate balance between workers' rights to strike and the need for adherence to formalised bargaining structures within the South African labour framework. The Labour Court's decision reinforces the importance of respecting established agreements, such as those set by the National Textile Bargaining Council (NTBC), and ensures that both employers and unions operate within the boundaries of these frameworks.

While the right to strike is a constitutionally protected right, its exercise must be in compliance with the procedural requirements stipulated by both the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and the relevant bargaining council agreements. The court’s ruling also emphasises the necessity for procedural fairness in dismissals arising from strike actions, even when the strike itself is deemed unprotected.

For the fashion and textile industry, this case serves as a reminder that industrial action must be carefully managed, with clear communication and strict adherence to legal frameworks to avoid costly consequences. It also highlights the vital role unions play in safeguarding the interests of workers, ensuring that they are properly informed and that their rights are not infringed upon during industrial actions.

Ultimately, this case strengthens the understanding that compliance with formal bargaining structures and procedural fairness in dismissals is not only a legal requirement but also an essential element in maintaining a stable and fair labour environment within the fashion and textile sector in South Africa.