When a political party intervenes in a strike‚ any concerns which the employer has must be raised with the political party and not with the trade unions or employees. Law firm Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr was commenting on the issue of who is accountable when a political party intervenes in a protected strike.It says this issue has been settled in the decision of National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits and Allied Workers and others v Universal Product Network (UPN) passed by the Labour Court.In that case‚ the union had embarked on a protected strike in October 2015 after failing to reach an agreement on wages and other conditions with the employer.However‚ during the course of the strike‚ banners were displayed criticising the UPN’s holding company‚ Woolworths‚ for doing business with Israel.Also‚ members of a political party‚ the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)‚ became involved in the strike.The EFF officials visited the UPN premises demanding to negotiate with management. They also told union members to intensify the strike by targeting trucks doing deliveries‚ and entering and leaving the company’s gates.The employer went to court and claimed that the striking employees had failed to comply with the picketing rules and had committed various acts of strike-related misconduct.The union denied it was in alliance or in partnership with the EFF‚ and had no control over the EFF and its programmes.In its judgment passed in November last year‚ the Labour Court said while the court will - in appropriate circumstances - declare an initially protected strike unprotected on account of levels and degrees of violence‚ this was not a conclusion that ought lightly to be reached.Judge Andre van Niekerk said the evidence presented by the employer did not disclose that any “political” demands had been made by the union.“To the extent that the EFF has made demands of the (company) these are not demands made by the union‚ and indeed‚ the union has expressly disassociated itself from both the EFF’s conduct and its demands‚” Van Niekerk said.Aadil Patel and Stephanie Goncalves‚ the law firm’s attorneys‚ said where a political party interfered with a strike and the employer was aggrieved by such actions‚ the employer could not hold the union liable.Patel said the correct course of action was for the employer to hold the political party and its members accountable for their misconduct and institute action against them.“Therefore‚ the mere fact that a strike has taken on a political flavour cannot transform a protected strike into an unprotected one.” ..