Published with license by Koninklijke Brill nv | doi:10.1163/24056901-10010007 © Marthinus van Staden, 2024 | ISSN: 2405-688X (print) 2405-6901 (online) Commentary ∵ Balancing Power in Collective Bargaining: the South African Constitutional Court’s Stance on Temporary Replacement Labor By Marthinus van Staden | ORCID: 0000-0002-7515-1423, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Received 19 October 2023 | Accepted 14 November 2023 | Published online 19 February 2024 Introduction The South African Constitutional Court recently held in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v. Trenstar (Pty) Ltd1 that an employer was not entitled to use replacement labor during a lock-out not directly in response to a strike. The union had initiated a strike but soon suspended it without relinquishing its demands. The employer threatened a lock-out unless the demands were dropped.2 Section 76(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (lra ) provides that “[a]n employer may not take into employment any person for the purpose of performing the work of any employee who is locked out, unless the lock-out is in response to a strike.”3 The union argued both that the proposed lock-out was not in response to a strike because the strike had been suspended and that the employer was not entitled to use replacement labor.4 1 National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Trenstar (Pty) Ltd (2023) (4) sa 449 (cc) [Trenstar]. 2 Trenstar, para. 48. 3 Act 66 of 1995. Emphasis added. 4 Trenstar, paras. 14–18. International Labor Rights Case Law 10 (2024) 37–42