R v Canqan and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Price JP, Back AJ
• Judgment Date: 22 May 1956
• Citation: 1956 (3) SA 366 (E)
• Hearing Date: 18 May 1956
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

Price, J.P.:

The appellants in this case were charged with the contravention of sub-sec. (1) read with sub-secs. (2) and (5) of sec. 18 E of Act 48 of 1953, as substituted by sec. 1 of Act 59 of 1955, read with sec. 1 of Act 48 of 1953, in that during the period from 16th to 19th January, 1956, and at Uitenhage, being employed by Fine Wool Products of SA Limited, they wrongfully and unlawfully took part in a strike by refusing or failing to continue to work or to comply with the F terms of employment applicable to them for the purpose of compelling the persons by whom they were employed to agree to agree to certain conditions as regards rates of pay for overtime work. The magistrate who heard the case convicted the appellants and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of £2 or to undergo imprisonment with compulsory labour for twenty days, and, in addition, to a further term of imprisonment of G thirty days with compulsory labour, which was suspended for twelve months on condition that during that period they are not convicted of a similar offence.

It appears that all the appellants were working for Fine Wool Products of SA Limited, Uitenhage, and that on 15th December of last year a H notice was displayed, with effect from 9th January, 1956, requiring employees in certain departments mentioned in the notice to begin work at 6 a.m. during week-days and 7 a.m. on Saturdays. This involved an extra ten hours work per week, which was to be regarded as overtime. As a result of the notice all the appellants ceased working, and Mr. Shanley, who had the matter in hand on behalf of the employer, interrogated the appellants ans was told that the appellants refused to work the overtime involved unless they were paid two shillings per

Price JP

hour in respect of such overtime. The appellants were then informed that 'a normal rate of overtime' would be paid. This rate is less than 1s. 5d. per hour, but the employer was prepared to pay the amount of 1s. 5d. per hour. As the employer was not prepared to pay overtime at the rate of two shillings per hour all the appellants ceased working.

A The notice of appeal sets out the various grounds on which it is contended that the magistrate's conclusion was erroneous. It is not necessary to repeat the contents of the notice of appeal, because only one point was argued and it is necessary only to consider that point.

B Mr. Porter-Mathew, Q.C., who appeared for the appellants, contended that the decision of the case depended upon the proper interpretation of sec. 19 of the...