Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

South African Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

South Africa Competition Appeal Court
111/CAC/Jun11 (March 9, 2012)


Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant), the largest retailer in the world, wanted to acquire Massmart Holdings Limited (Massmart), a South African retailer, to enter the South African market. The Competition Commission, the body tasked with investigating potential mergers, found no issues and recommended that the Competition Tribunal approve the merger. Several unions and small-business organizations opposed the merger, and Wal-Mart voluntarily agreed to three conditions meant to protect the public interest. Wal-Mart agreed to not lay off any workers for merger-related reasons for two years and to give preference in hiring to workers who had been laid off by Massmart before the merger took place. Wal-Mart also agreed to recognize existing collective-bargaining rights enjoyed by union workers and to not challenge the status of the South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) (plaintiff) as the dominant representative of its workers for three years. Finally, Wal-Mart agreed to some form of investment in local manufacturers to address a fear that it would rely on its global purchasing power to import goods, harming the local manufacturers that had supplied goods to Massmart. Considering the opposition, the Competition Commission reexamined the merger and found that Wal-Mart was substantially likely to lower prices for consumers but recognized potential public-interest concerns regarding the merger’s impact on employees and local procurement. The Competition Tribunal conditionally approved the merger, integrating the policies to which Wal-Mart had voluntarily agreed into the approval process. SACCAWU appealed, arguing that the consumer-welfare approach used by the competition authorities to analyze the merger violated § 12A of the South African Competition Law.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Davis and Zondi, JJ.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial