Picking trouble: When political parties play union

In a recent judgment handed down by the Labour Court of South Africa in Boomerang Fruits v uMkhonto weSizwe and Others, the court grappled with the complex intersection of labour law, political activism, and workplace unrest. The case arose from an unprotected strike by employees of Boomerang Fruits, a fruit-packing business in Elgin, and the involvement of the political party uMkhonto weSizwe (MKP), which claimed to act in an advisory capacity.

The judgment provides critical insights into the legal boundaries of political involvement in labour disputes and reinforces the importance of procedural compliance under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

Legal implications

Unprotected strike action

The court confirmed that the strike action initiated on 26 April 2025 was unprotected and unlawful. The employees failed to comply with the procedural requirements under section 64(1)(a) of the LRA, which mandates prior notice and engagement with dispute resolution mechanisms before embarking on strike action.

Interdict against MKP

Although MKP denied instigating the strike, the court found that its conduct went beyond mere advisory support. MKP:

• Participated in demonstrations alongside striking workers.
• Represented workers in mediation sessions.
• Issued inflammatory media statements vilifying the employer.
• Assisted workers in laying criminal charges against management.

The court held that MKP had assumed a de facto representative role akin to that of a trade union, without being registered as one. This conduct was deemed to be in furtherance of the unprotected strike, justifying the interdict against MKP.

Costs and accountability

The court ordered MKP to pay half of Boomerang’s legal costs, including those related to the postponement of the hearing. The attorneys representing the individual employees were also directed to show cause why they should not be held liable for wasted costs, due to their failure to file answering affidavits after requesting a postponement.

Key takeaways

For employers

• Act swiftly and legally: Boomerang’s decision to seek urgent relief was vindicated. Employers must act promptly when faced with unlawful industrial action.
• Document everything: The detailed affidavits and chronology of events were crucial in securing the interdict.
• Engage cautiously: Employers should be wary of engaging with non-union entities in labour disputes, especially political organisations.

For employees

• Know your rights and procedures: Engaging in strike action without following the correct procedures under the LRA can lead to dismissal and legal consequences.
• Choose representation wisely: Relying on political parties instead of registered trade unions can undermine the legitimacy of workplace grievances.

For political parties and community organisations

• Stay within legal bounds: The judgment reinforces that political parties may only play an advisory role in labour disputes. Acting as a proxy union without registration is unlawful.
• Avoid inflammatory rhetoric: Public statements that vilify employers can escalate tensions and undermine mediation efforts.

Final thoughts

This case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blurring the lines between political activism and labour representation. While community support for workers is commendable, it must be exercised within the framework of the law. The Labour Court’s judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural compliance, the role of registered trade unions, and the need for constructive engagement in resolving workplace disputes.

As South Africa continues to navigate the complexities of labour relations, this case underscores the need for clarity, legality, and restraint, especially when politics enters the workplace.

For advice or more information, please contact Riona Kalua, head of our Labour and Employment team.