Mostrando 93 resultados

Descripción archivística
Garment Workers Union records subsubsubsubseries
Imprimir vista previa Ver :

Sachs v C R Swart Minister of Justice)

Application to set aside Minister's order removing Sachs from Secretaryship of the Garment Workers Union and prohibiting him from attending public gatherings.

Application was dismissed.

Papers.

Sachs v Voortrekkerpers

Action for defamation. Defamatory article in Die Klerewerkersnuus, 14 July 1950 headed Anti-Sachswerkers se: Ons sal staak, maar vir ons else. The matter was settled out of court. Sachs received £1000 and costs. A Scheepers (president) J Cornelius (Organiser) and all members of the Central Executive Committee were paid damages.

Anna Scheepers and others v Regina

Appeal against conviction by Johannesburg magistrate of organising a public gathering on 26 May 1952. The appeals were allowed and the convictions and sentences were set aside.

Papers.

Reuben Freinkel (of C & S Knitwear) v Garment Workers Union and Johanna Fellner (Cornelius)

Dispute in the clothing industry Transvaal from 1957 because of the claim by knitwear manufacturers that they are not engaged in the clothing industry. The Minister of Labour referred the question to the Industrial Tribunal which decided in September 1958 that the Industrial Council agreement was binding on knitwear manufacturers.

They were therefore compelled to pay contributions to the Industrial Council for Clothing Industry (Transvaal) for the Medical Aid Society, Provident Fund and Slack Pay Fund. The employers appealed and the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside on 2 May 1960.

Therefore on 1st August 1960 42 employees of C & S Knitwear ceased work. Freinkel maintained that the strike was illegal and brought an application against the Garment Workers Union and its general secretary for an order restraining them from supporting the strike.

The judge concluded on 15 December 1961 that the strike was in fact a lockout when they learnt on 1 August 1960 that they were not entitled to the Industrial Council benefits.

Therefore the defendants did not incite or instigate them to commit an unlawful act. The action was dismissed with costs.

Resultados 31 a 40 de 93