On October 12, 2018, the respondent filed an urgent application in the Court to declare the strike action unprotected. The case was tried on 17 October 2018 and on 19 October 2018 the Court (via Moshoana, J) concluded that the strike action had been protected and that the appeal had been dismissed. The Court identified the real issue as the request for a new collective agreement.  The respondent is an employer organization that falls under the plastics industry, as defined in the MEIBC Certificate of Accreditation, and is a member of the MEIBC. (i) a certificate confirming that the dispute is not resolved has been issued; Or  The respondent is the case where the conciliation meetings took place from April 24 to 25 and May 10-11, 2018. During these meetings, NUMSA requested that the terms of the main agreement be agreed, while the respondent expressed its request to reach an agreement on the same terms as the consolidated agreement. No agreement could be reached.  Negotiations resulted in a collective agreement entitled “Consolidated 2016/2021 Plastic Industry Agreement” signed by six employers` organizations. On May 17, 2017, MEIBC`s MANCO adopted the group contract as a collective agreement of the Council.
This agreement binds only the parties to the agreement and, since NUMSA has not signed the agreement, the parties have remained in conflict over the terms of employment of NUMSA members in the plastics sector.  It is also clear from this protocol that many NUMSA delegates attended the manco meeting on 19 March 2018 and were therefore parties to the agreement that a special MANCO should be convened to deal with the dispute.  In August 2016, the respondent entered into negotiations in accordance with the Meibc Constitution (Constitution) for the conclusion of a new collective agreement comprehensively regulating the terms of employment in the plastics industry. The respondent submitted a broad draft agreement for the occupancy and negotiation meetings of the parties to the negotiations between October 2016 and May 2017.  The respondent submitted that during the negotiations that resulted in the dismissal of the dispute on March 7, 2018, and in particular the first negotiations facilitated on February 27, 2018, the NUMSA asked the parties to reach an agreement on the same terms as the main agreement. In return, the respondent requested that NUMSA accept the terms of the consolidated agreement. The negotiations ended in a deadlock.  In May and June 2014, negotiations were held at the PNF and a collective agreement was reached to regulate the terms of employment in the plastics industry.
The agreement remained in effect until June 30, 2016.  On February 27, 2018, NUMSA declared a freeze on the requests it had submitted to the PNF for negotiation.