"Recent newspaper reports and several decisions of the South African Labour Court illustrate that strike-related violence continues to be a destructive feature of industrial action. The misconduct includes the murder of non-strikers, destruction of property, random plundering of street-based traders, and intimidation. In the strike context labour law is proving to be an inadequate framework to regulate mob violence and criminal activity. Employers lack police expertise and powers to prevent and control a strike while it is occurring and to investigate strike-related misconduct after the strike. In the workplace, disciplinary action is often thwarted by the intimidation of witnesses. The mechanisms of control within labour law are mainly judicial. Employers can turn to the courts for an interdict to stop a strike or to restrict aspects of it. Employers can later seek a court order for compensation for loss attributable to the strike. If there is evidence of intimidation or other criminal activity, criminal charges can be laid. The courts may be prepared to suspend or nullify the protected status of a strike because of violence. These legal mechanisms are largely reactive and punitive, and a more holistic approach to the problem is required. There is a body of literature outside of law which helpfully explains the psychological, sociological and economic factors that contribute to mob violence. A fuller understanding of these factors, together with a robust and systematic pre-strike facilitation process which is supportive of good-faith negotiation, is proposed as pre-emptive measures to improve the situation. Finally, this article will consider comparative law insights into the regulation of misconduct during strikes."

Support: Paper