The liability of trade unions for conduct of their members during industrial action

Abstract

South Africa has been experiencing a number of violent strikes by trade unions in recent times. The issue is not only to hold unions liable for damage caused during strikes, but also to reduce the number of violent strikes. This study investigates if victims of such violence can hold trade unions liable for the violent acts committed by their members during industrial action. The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA) makes provision for the dismissal of employees who commit misconduct during an unprotected strike. It also provides the remedy of an interdict and a claim for just and equitable compensation which can be made against the union, during an unprotected strike. It is further possible to hold the union together with its members liable for damages in terms of the Regulation of Gatherings Act, 205 of 1993 (RGA). The study argues that a strike or conduct in furtherance of a strike that becomes violent could lose protection and the trade union should consequently be held liable, in terms of the LRA and/ or the RGA, for damages caused by its members. This study investigates the position in Canada, Botswana and Australia to determine if there could be any other basis upon which to hold trade union liable for the conduct of its members. The study recommends that the common law doctrine of vicarious liability should be developed by the courts to allow trade unions to be held liable for damages caused by members during violent industrial action. Policy considerations and changing economic conditions and the nature of strikes in the Republic favours the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability to trade union member relationship.