AT THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING COUNCIL. NUMSA obo JOHN MAHLANGU ARBITRATION AWARD
|
|
- Dale Long
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AT THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING COUNCIL IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN NUMSA obo JOHN MAHLANGU APPLICANT AND GK STEEL & MINING RESPONDENT ARBITRATION AWARD CASE NUMBER: MEGA DATE OF HEARING: 12 July and 09 October 2012 WRITTEN CLOSING SUBMITTED: 16 October 2102 DATE AWARD SUBMITTED: 28 October 2012 NAME OF PANELLIST: Coen Havenga Centre for Dispute Resolution Gauteng and North West (011) Tshwane, Mpumalanga and Limpopo (012) Free State and Northern Cape (057) Western Cape (021) KwaZulu Natal (031) East London (Border Region) (043) Port Elizabeth (Midlands) (041)
2 1. DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION The last day of the hearing of the arbitration took place on 09 October 2012 at the Centre for Dispute Resolution at the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council offices in Witbank. The parties requested to submit written closing arguments which were all submitted by 16 October The Applicant is NUMSA on behalf of John Mahlangu, represented by Mr. S Tau, a union official. The Respondent is GK Steel & Mining, represented by Mr. L Cullen, an EOM official. 2. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED The arbitration takes place in terms of the referral of the dispute by the Applicant. The parties agreed that the dismissal of the Applicant is not in dispute. Both substantive and procedural fairness were placed in dispute. The issue to be decided was accordingly whether the Applicant s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The Respondent submitted a bundle of documents as Bundle A, page 1 20, and the Applicant submitted Bundle B, page PRELIMINARY ISSUES Respondent submitted the following opening statement: The Applicant was notified of the disciplinary hearing, as well as the union as he was a shop steward. He failed to follow a direct order in respect of safety. He failed to wear his personal protective equipment (PPE). Dismissal was the appropriate sanction. He was found guilty and was dismissed on 10 February He had 6 years service. He had been employed as a cutter and earned R33-68 per hour. The Applicant submitted the following opening statement: It was an unfair dismissal for misconduct, as he denies the misconduct. The Applicant challenges the procedure as item 4(2) of Schedule 8 was not complied with. The Applicant was a shop steward. The Applicant asks for retrospective reinstatement without loss of any benefits.
3 4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE The proceedings have been recorded digitally, and only a summary of the Respondent s witnesses and Applicant s evidence follows below. LLOYD CULLEN testified that he was requested to chair the disciplinary hearing. Page A2 and A3 are letters notifying the union of the disciplinary hearing as the Applicant was a shop steward. The Applicant was informed of his rights. He elected not to be represented. He signed on page A4. He pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty. He never raised any concern about the process. He never asked to be represented. During cross-examination he testified that the issue of consulting with the union in respect of the disciplinary action against a shop steward is a matter of interpretation. He denies that the Applicant requested a postponement. JOHANNES BOTHA testified that he is the general manager. They have 2 HD Plasma cutters and 2 flame cutting machines. Employees must wear their PPE. The flame cutters are dangerous because of the splattering effect. Safety is not negotiable. The PPE consist of ear plugs, goggles, safety boots and overalls. Page A17 reflects the toolbox talks held every week to teach employees the importance of PPE. It is done with all employees. Page A18 shows the Applicant s signature as proof that he attended the safety talk. In respect of charge 1 he did not follow the rules as he wore his goggles on top of his head and not on his eyes. He could lose his eye if metal is shot into his eye. Charge 2 is about him not wearing the protection as instructed. There was a previous dismissal for the same reason. The Respondent acted consistently. Charge 4 relates to the fact that there was an inspection by an Escom subcontractor on a tender. They check for quality and safety. On that day the employees were specifically asked to please wear the PPE. The Applicant did not wear his. He jeopardized his own safety as well as a 3.5 million rand tender. They did not place an order with the Respondent and they lost business as a result. The flame cutters used by the Applicant causes a flash that could get into the eyes. During cross-examination he testified that Kolesky informed him that the Applicant was not wearing his PPE. He did not witness the incident. He denied that the lenses of the goggles were too dark too see through. Kusela was a potential client and they never received an order from them. The employees have to wear PPE even if they are not operating a machine at the time. GERHARD KOLESKY testified that he is the owner of the business. The Applicant was dismissed for not obeying his instructions to the workshop foreman. He expected a visit from Kusela Power Station. They belong to Escom and are very strict when it comes to safety.
4 He gave the workshop foreman instruction to go to every profile cutter and tell them management says they must please wear their PPE. The people wanted to see the workshop and he wanted to show them the plasma machine they imported from Germany. He found the Applicant cutting strips without his safety glasses. He called him to his office after the people left to ask why he did not wear it. He did not answer him. When he said he is going to charge him he said he must do what he wanted to do. He wore his safety glasses on top of his head. The machine he uses causes sparks to fly and the safety glasses protect the eyes. Melted steel could cause the loss of an eye. The same week that they had the safety meeting the Applicant failed to wear his PPE. He personally saw him without his glasses. During cross-examination he testified that the Applicant was busy cutting when he saw him. Sparks were flying all over the place. The Applicant s version that he can t see through the glasses when taking measurements is not valid as he worked on an automatic machine that had the measurements fed into a computer. He just has to cut. The Applicant is a shop steward. He tried to divert the visitor s attention so they would notice the Applicant cutting without his glasses. The relationship has been broken when he told him to do what he wanted to do. He did respond to the union s letter as per page A2. He endangered the contract with Escom as they place high regard on safety. JOHN MAHLANGU testified that he was taking measurements with the safety glasses on his head as he see properly through it when it is on his eyes. If one cut the wrong size you get dismissed or have to pay. He did not tell Kolesky to do what he wants to. He is a shop steward. He did ask for a postponement to obtain representation. It was refused. He signed A4 because they said he will be dismissed if he does not sign. The Respondent did not respond to the union s letter. The company did not consult the union. The relationship has not been broken down. During cross-examination he testified that he was issued with safety glasses. It is issued to protect him. Safety glasses go hand in hand with his work as profile cutter. His glasses were on his head. One can read on paper through the glasses. He agrees there are light in the workshop. He agrees there is a rule about safety in the workplace. All employees are educated on the use of PPE. It is a fair rule. SUMMARY OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS The parties submitted written closing arguments which forms part of the record. I have studied and considered both sets of closing arguments. The Respondent argued that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair. The Applicant argued that none of the misconduct was proven and requests retrospective reinstatement.
5 5. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT 5.1 SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS OF THE DISMISSAL In considering the substantive fairness of the dismissal of the Applicant for misconduct, the principles contained in the Code of Good Practice for Dismissals in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, no. 66 of 1995, provide the following guidelines: a) Whether or not the accused employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace; and b) If the rule or standard was contravened, whether or not i. The rule was a valid or reasonable rule or standard; ii. The accused employee was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the rule or standard; iii. The employer has consistently applied the rule or standard. iv. Dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard. The dismissal of the Applicant is not in dispute, and the Respondent is therefore required to prove that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The standard of proof that is applicable in hearings of this nature is identical to the civil standard the employer must prove the case against the employee on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt Meadow Feeds (Pietermaritzburg) vs. Sweet Food and Allied Workers Union (1998) Arb WAS A RULE OR STANDARD REGULATING CONDUCT IN, OR OF RELEVANCE TO, THE WORKPLACE CONTRAVENED? Arbitration hearings are not merely reviews of the employer s decision to dismiss employees, or the propriety of the procedures followed by the employer (John Grogan Dismissal 320 (2002)). An arbitration hearing constitutes a full rehearing on the merits plus an investigation of the fairness of the procedure followed by the employer. (See Gibb v Nedcor Ltd ILJ 364 (LC)). Arbitration amounts to a hearing de novo. The decision of the arbitrator is not reached with reference to the evidential material that was before the employer at the time of its enquiry, but on the evidential material placed before the arbitrator during the arbitration hearing.
6 This means that all relevant evidence must be placed before the arbitrator in proper form, even if it has been fully canvassed at the employee s disciplinary hearing. (See Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others [2007] JOL (CC, where the Court approved the LAC dictum in Count Fair Foods (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others [1999] 11 BLLR 1117 (LAC)). The charges against the Applicant appear in the notice to attend a disciplinary hearing as reflected on page 3 of Bundle A, and reads as follows: 1. Not following company rules & procedures concerning safety. 2. Not following direct orders from management. 3. Breach of working relationship between employee and employer. 4. Putting the company s name into disrepute and endangering contracts. I am satisfied that the Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that The Applicant was issued with PPE, that he was educated in the use of it and that he was given a specific order to wear it on the day of the incident. The Applicant did not dispute that. He also does not dispute that he did not wear the glasses on his eyes when observed. He denied that he was cutting at the time and submits that he wore the glasses on his head to enable him to take measurements as he can t see properly through it when taking measurements. The glasses were produced at the arbitration and it is evident that one can indeed see through the glasses. Even if I accept that he was not cutting at the time his excuse for not wearing it at all times as instructed is not valid. However, the Respondent submitted that there is no need to take measurements as it is done by computer. On a balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the Applicant was indeed cutting at the time that he was observed to have his glasses on his head. He failed to adhere to company rules concerning safety. It is not in dispute that there was a direct order on the day to wear PPE in the light of a visit by potential clients. The Applicant failed to follow that instruction. Considering the undisputed evidence of the Respondent that the potential client places high standards on safety, and that the company received no orders form them, I find that the company name was probably brought into disrepute by the Applicant s defiance. This led to a breach of the working relationship. I am satisfied that the Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant committed the misconduct he was charged with.
7 5.1.2 WAS THE RULE OR STANDARD VALID OR REASONABLE? Considering the nature of the employer s business, the circumstances in which it operates, the type of work performed by the employee and the environment in which the work is performed, it is accepted that the rules are valid, i.e. lawful and reasonable. The employer has an obligation in terms of legislation to ensure the safety of employees, and rules and instructions to promote that have to be adhered to. the Applicant agreed that such rules are reasonable and valid. There is no evidence that the rules had been abrogated by disuse because the employer had not relied on it for some time WAS A THE EMPLOYEE AWARE, OR COULD HE REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE RULE OR STANDARD? What is required by the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 for a dismissal for misconduct to be fair is that the employee was aware or could be reasonably expected to have been aware of the rule or standard. Although the provisions of Schedule 8 do not necessarily require the rule or standard in question to have been conveyed to employees in meticulous detail in the disciplinary code of the employer, I am satisfied that it was in fact done so in this case. The Applicant did not dispute knowledge of the rules. I am of the opinion that the employee was well aware of the rules or standards as shop steward, and that the conduct the employee was found guilty of, constitutes transgressions HAS THE RULE OR STANDARD BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED BY THE EMPLOYER? There is no evidence of inconsistent and arbitrary action on the part of the employer in this matter. There is no evidence that the employer has habitually or frequently condoned similar offences in the past. There is also no evidence that the employer s standards differ materially from those applied by other employers IS DISMISSAL AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR THE CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULE OR STANDARD? The employer has argued that dismissal is appropriate taking into account the nature of the transgression. It is therefore necessary to consider whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction, and whether a lesser sanction would serve the desired purpose. The employer s disciplinary code prescribes dismissal for an offence of this nature.
8 In considering an appropriate sanction, I am required to exercise my discretion reasonably, honestly and with due regard to the general principles of fairness. The Code of Good Conduct: Dismissal, states that one of the requirements of a fair dismissal for misconduct is that the dismissal must be an appropriate remedy, in the light of the facts of the case. The courts have accepted that the ultimate justification for employers power to impose discipline flows from their right to manage their business effectively. (See De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC) at 1058F-G). Defiance to obey a reasonable instruction must be gross to justify dismissal. The Applicant put his own safety at risk and also jeopardized a potential contract worth millions of rand through his disobedience to follow instructions. The misconduct is serious. As a shop steward he had the responsibility and duty to set an example in respect of adherence to rules and following procedure. Employers have a right and duty to maintain discipline in the workplace. This duty is recognized in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, no. 66 of 1995, the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal. The function of discipline in the employment context is to ensure that individual employees contribute effectively and efficiently to the goals of the common enterprise. Those employees who show by their conduct that they are unwilling to comply with, or are incapable of adhering to their employer s rules and standards can fairly be dismissed (See NUMSA and others vs Free State Consolidated Gold Mines 1996 (1) SA 422 (A)). I am satisfied that the nature of the offences of which the Applicant has been found guilty of, is in the specific circumstances such that it would have a irreparable impact on the trust relationship. It is well established that the relationship between employer and employee is in essence one of trust and confidence and that, at common law, conduct clearly inconsistent therewith entitles the innocent party to cancel the agreement (See Angehrn and Piel v Federal Cold Storage Co Ltd 1908 TS 761 at ) On that basis it appears to me that our law has to be the same as that of English law and also that a reciprocal duty rests upon the employee. There are some judgments in the LAC to this effect (e.g. Humphries & Jewell (Pty) Ltd v Federal Council of Retail and Allied Workers Union (1991) 12 ILJ 1032 (LAC) 1037G). The Applicant has not shown any signs of remorse that would indicate a willingness to restore the trust relationship. The Applicant s years of service cannot outweigh the gravity and seriousness of his offence. The Labour Appeal Court has held that long service cannot in itself provide a basis for rendering a dismissal unfair. See De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC).
9 Taking into account then the inherent seriousness of the misconduct concerned as well as the aggravating factors that have been discussed above, it is my opinion that dismissal is an appropriate sanction in these circumstances. 5.2 PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS OF THE DISMISSAL Section 188 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, confirms that procedural fairness is an independent requirement for a fair dismissal. In considering the procedural fairness of the dismissal of Mr. Mahlangu for misconduct, the principles contained in item 4 of Schedule 8 The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, is followed. I am satisfied on the correspondence with the union in Bundle A shows that the Respondent did notify the union of the pending disciplinary action against a shop steward, and that the requirement of consultation was met. The Applicant alleges that he signed the process form merely because he was threatened with dismissal, and that his request for a postponement to obtain representation was denied. I find it improbable that a shop steward would act in that manner. He would be well aware of his rights. I find that there was no procedural unfairness that caused material prejudice to the Applicant. 6. AWARD 1. I find that the dismissal of Mr. Mahlangu was both substantively and procedurally fair. 2. The Applicant is not entitled to relief and the application is dismissed. PANELLIST: COEN HAVENGA AWARD: MEGA35737
ARBITRATION AWARD IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTORIAL BARGAINING COUNCIL (HELD AT GEORGE) CASE NO: PSHS126-11/12
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Case No.: Date of Award: Paul Kirstein PSHS126-11/12 1-Mar-2012 In the ARBITRATION between: IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTORIAL BARGAINING COUNCIL (HELD
More informationDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EASTERN CAPE THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PORT ELIZABETH Not reportable Case no: PR 71/13 In the matter between: THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EASTERN CAPE Applicant And THOBELA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS (PTY) LIMITED
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR2799/11 In the matter between: NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and NATIONAL BARGAINING
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 815/15 DUNCANMEC (PTY) LTD Applicant and WILLIAM, ITUMELENG N.O THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRY BARGAINING
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. 4 PL FLEET (PTY) LTD Applicant
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 1867/15 In the matter between: 4 PL FLEET (PTY) LTD Applicant and JIM MBUYISELLWA MABASO First Respondent DANIEL H BAKANI Second
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT BERNARD ANTONY MARROW
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P229/11 In the matter between: BERNARD ANTONY MARROW Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1679/13 In the matter between: SIZANO ADAM MAHLANGU Applicant and COMMISION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHNNESBURG)
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHNNESBURG) Not Reportable Case No.JR877/12 In the matter between NATIONAL UNION MINEWORKERS First Applicant obo RUTH MASHA and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR 2170/11 In the matter between: SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER WILFRED NKOENG N.O NUPDW obo SIFISO
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA; JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA; JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 706/2012 In the matter between: PILLAY, MOGASEELAN (RAMA) First Applicant LETSOALO, MAITE MELIDA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P543/13 In the matter between: MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA Applicant And THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 628/07 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT CASE NO C 65/12 Not reportable In the matter between: FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Z NEWU AND OTHERS FIRST APPLICANT SECOND
More informationSAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
SAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2504/12 In the matter between: NORTHAM PLATINUM LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationand The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 1 st Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER J891/98 In the matter between Cycad Construction (Pty) Ltd Applicant and The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 839/2011 BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD Applicant and NUMSA obo ITUMELENG MAWELELA First Respondent ADVOCATE PC PIO
More information1 From the General Secretary's desk...1
In this Issue: JANUARY 2016 1 From the General Secretary's desk...1 2 Developments in Labour Law: Conducting an arbitration hearing in an application format: Can an arbitration hearing be dealt with based
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MEC: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GAUTENG.
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2145 / 2008 In the matter between: MEC: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GAUTENG Applicant and J MSWELI
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO. D460/08 In the matter between: SHAUN SAMSON Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent ALMEIRO
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Not reportable. Case No: JR 369/10
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR 369/10 In the matter between: DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING : LIMPOPO First Applicant MEC : DEPARTMENT OF
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Not of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 202/10 In the matter between: K J LISANYANE Applicant and C J
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationPIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which the applicant seeks to have the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: PIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD Reportable Case number JR1834/09 Applicant and SALGBC K MAMBA N.O IMATU obo COOK First Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J 2591/17 In the matter between: FAIS OMBUD Applicant and MPHO RAMETSI First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P 423/12 In the matter between: NKOSINDINI MELAPI Applicant andand THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationINTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD A R B I T R A T I O N A W A R D
ARBITRATIONHELD AT SA ROAD PASSENGER BARGAINING COUNCIL HELD AT INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD: BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE MATTER BETWEEN TAWUSA obo MOTEMA APPLICANT AND INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT TSEPANG PASCALIS NOOSI
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 291/2011 In the matter between: TSEPANG PASCALIS NOOSI Applicant and EXXAROMATLA COAL First Respondent COMMISSION FOR
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1859/13 NJR STEEL HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD NJR STEEL - PRETORIA EAST (PTY) LTD First Applicant Second
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: SITHOLE, JOEL Case no: JR 318/15 Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING JOSEPH MPHAPHULI NO SPRAY SYSTEM
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 490/15 In the matter between: ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE Applicant and PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING COUNCIL DANIEL
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS SAMANCOR WESTERN CHROME MINES JUDGMENT: POINT IN LIMINE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 2015/14 & JS 406/14 In the matter between AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS TEBOGO MOSES MATHIBA First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 3/03 VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 3/03 XINWA and 1335 OTHERS Applicants versus VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent Decided on : 4 April 2003 JUDGMENT THE COURT: [1] The applicants
More informationIn the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry
In the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry In the matter between: CEPPWAWU obo N. Gray Applicant and Clover Leaf Candles Respondent RULING - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION Case No.: WCChem
More informationremitted back to the first respondent to be arbitrated de novo. The reasons
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO: JR2885/08 In the matter between: J. H. STANDER Applicant AND THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL R I MACGREGOR N.O. 1 st
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- EASTERN CAPE
ARBITRATION AWARD CASE NO: PSHS277-17/18 PANELIST: W R PRETORIUS DATE OF AWARD: 11 DECEMBER 2017 In the matter between: PAWUSA obo MOLO, E N APPLICANT and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- EASTERN CAPE RESPONDENT
More informationNOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. JR 365/06
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. JR 365/06 In the matter between: PATRICK LEBOHO Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First
More informationThis code is applicable to all employees of Finbond Mutual Bank, including temporary employees.
POLICY NUMBER 1 DISCIPLINARY CODE OF CONDUCT A) Purpose The Disciplinary Code of Conduct acts as a guide and regulatory tool to both management and employees in the handling of disciplinary matters. The
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, AT DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D477/11 In the matter between:- HOSPERSA First Applicant E. JOB Second Applicant and CHITANE SOZA
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CEMENTATION MINING Applicant
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JR 1644/06 In the matter between: CEMENTATION MINING Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1 ST Respondent
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 535/13 Not Reportable In the matter between: SATAWU obo A KGWELE Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR2760/12 Reportable In the matter between: MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1231/12 In the matter between: PAUL REFILOE MAHAMO Applicant And CMC di RAVENNA SOUTH AFRICA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: JR 2500/10 In the matter between: MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: JS 1135/12 In the matter between: DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS Applicant and TS AFRIKA CATERING
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT LOVEDALE MODERATE ZIBUYILE HADEBE ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY- METRO WATER
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: JR 730/12 Not Reportable DUNYISWA MAQUNGO Applicant andand LUVUYO QINA N.O First Respondent
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J1773/12 In the matter between: VUSI MASHIANE and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Applicant First Respondent
More informationTRANSNET FREIGHT RAIL...Applicant. TRANSNET BARGAINING COUNCIL...First Respondent. M DOLLIE N.O...Second Respondent. SATAWU...
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN Case no.: C644/2009 In the matter between: TRANSNET FREIGHT RAIL...Applicant And TRANSNET BARGAINING COUNCIL...First Respondent M DOLLIE N.O....Second
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 392/14 In the matter between KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D963/09 In the matter between:- NDWEDWE MUNICIPALITY Applicant and GORDON SIZWESIHLE MNGADI COMMISSIONER
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NORTH WEST PARKS AND TOURISM BOARD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JS881/09 In the matter between: GLADYS PULE Applicant and NORTH WEST PARKS AND TOURISM BOARD Respondent In re: TRANSPORT
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no. D552/12 In the matter between: HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES PERSONNEL TRADE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA TM SOMERS First
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1906/2016 In the matter between ELIZABETH LEE MING Applicant and MMI GROUP LTD KAREN DE VILLIERS N.O. First Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN TROPIC PLASTICS AND PACKAGING INDSUTRY (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN Not Reportable Case no: D02-17 In the matter between: TROPIC PLASTICS AND PACKAGING INDSUTRY (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS OF
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other Judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J1746/18 JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN BUS SERVICES SOC LTD Applicant and DEMOCRATIC MUNCIPAL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2630/12 In the matter between: NUM obo MOGASHOA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2368/15 In the matter between: EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING
More informationREQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
LRA Form 7.13 Section 136 Labour Relations Act, 1995 REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION Read This First WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS FORM? If conciliation fails, a party may request that the CCMA resolve the dispute
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no: D536/12 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY Applicant and COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 In the matter between : SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES APPLICANT and SUPT F H LUBBE FIRST RESPONDENT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 463/2016 ROBOR (PTY) LTD First Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT PICK N PAY LANGENHOVEN PARK. Second Respondent
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 1534/15 In the matter between: ROYCE S FAMILY SUPERMARKET (PTY) LTD t/a PICK N PAY LANGENHOVEN PARK Applicant and DELL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT. First Applicant
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D1001/11 In the matter between: SAMWU S NXUMALO V MALINGA First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2826/11 In the matter between: CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY Applicant And S KHOLOANE First Respondent MARINA TERBLANCHE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN In the matter between: REPORTABLE CASE NUMBER: C662/07 ELSTON, INGRID Applicant and McEWAN NO, GAIL SHELL SA ENERGY (PTY) LTD NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J 1607/17 NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS Applicant and PETRA DIAMONDS t/a CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard: 2 August
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR832/11 In the matter between: SUPT. MM ADAMS Applicant and THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL JOYCE TOHLANG
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN Case No. C701/99 In the matter between: Kohler Flexible Packaging (Pty) Ltd APPLICANT and Commissioner H Mofsowitz, N O FIRST RESPONDENT Commission
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Reportable CASE NO.: JR 598/07. In the matter between: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS.
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO.: JR 598/07 In the matter between: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant MCUBUSE Second Applicant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Of interest to other judges Case No: J 580/18 In the matter between: AUBREY NDINANNYI TSHIVHANDEKANO Applicant and MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES THE
More informationOBO RICHARD CHARLES MATOLA MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: J2566/14 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION OBO RICHARD CHARLES MATOLA Applicant
More informationCITY OF CAPE TOWN First Respondent. ADVOCATE SOEWYBA FLOWERS N.O. Second Respondent JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF TOWN SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE Case no: C05/2011 Not reportable In the matter between: THEMBALETHU JACK Applicant and CITY OF CAPE TOWN First Respondent ADVOCATE
More informationNORTHERN PLATINUM MINES
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 825/07 In the matter between: NORTHERN PLATINUM MINES APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION & ARBITRARTION ABEL RAMOLOTJE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG) JUDGMENT JACOB MBELE & 51 OTHERS
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG) JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO: JS 940/13 In the matter between: JACOB MBELE & 51 OTHERS Applicant and CHAINPACK (PTY) LTD KING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. NEHAWU obo DLAMINI AND 5 OTHERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 1632 / 14 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo DLAMINI AND 5 OTHERS Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More information8.1.2 Cooper and another v Merchant Trade Finance Ltd 2000 (3) SA 1009 (SCA)
8 EVIDENCE 8.1 Balance of probabilities 8.1.1 Govan v Skidmore 1952 (1) SA 732 (N) 8.1.2 Cooper and another v Merchant Trade Finance Ltd 2000 (3) SA 1009 (SCA) 8.2 Evaluating evidence - relevance admissibility
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2767/16 NKOSINATHI KHENA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA Respondent Heard: 23 November 2016 Delivered:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: P 341/11 In the matter between: BRIAN SCHROEDER GRAHAM SUTHERLAND First Applicant Second
More informationEmployers in the retail sector face
Contemporary Labour Law Shrinkage and dismissal Vol. 18 No. 1 August 2008 Have the rules relating to theft and dismissal changed? by Carl Mischke Managing Editor: P.A.K. Le Roux Contributing Editor: Carl
More informationIn the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 868/13 In the matter between: PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPLICANT and COMMISSION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN BRAAMFONTEIN)
Page 1 of 7 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN BRAAMFONTEIN) Case no: JR1347-2007 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS 1 ST APPLICANT PETER MASHA V 2 ND APPLICANT COMMISSION FOR
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 220/13 In the matter between: MAGUMENI PHILEMON MATHEBULA First Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationD R C. Rules. (As amended in July 2008)
D R C Rules (As amended in July 2008) 1 RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRC T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S PART ONE SERVING AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS 1. How to contact the DRC 2. Addresses
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR1944/12 DAVID CHAUKE Applicant and SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL THE MINISTER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER F J
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT WILFRED BONGINKOSI NKABINDE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J1812/12 In the matter between: WILFRED BONGINKOSI NKABINDE Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationDISCIPLINARY CODE & PROCEDURE
DISCIPLINARY CODE & PROCEDURE Updated: August 2013 Page 1 of 18 CONTENT A. Introduction 4 B. Definitions. 4 C. Guidelines. 4 D. Substantive Fairness... 5 E. Procedural Fairness... 5 F. Sanctions.. 6 i.
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 271/15 SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS (SOC) LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR2899/2012 In the matter between: SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS Applicant and SEHUNANE M, N.O. First Respondent THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not reportable Case No: JR 94/16 PHUTI TODD CHOKOE Applicant and MR. T. WILKES First Respondent SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Case no: D914/12 In the matter between: THULISILE LYNETTE ZUMA PHUMZILE REVIVAL BEKWA FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 86/2013 In the matter between: OVERSTRAND MUNICIPALITY Applicant and A MAGERMAN
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 438/11 In the matter between: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER J S K NKOSI N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT GRAHAM FREDERICK THORNE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 832/08 Not reportable In the matter between: GRAHAM FREDERICK THORNE Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationDepartment of Health-Free State. 1. The arbitration hearing convened on 11 August 2017 at Bophelo House in Bloemfontein.
ARBITRATION AWARD Case No: PSHS310-17/18 Commissioner: Suria van Wyk Date of award: 4 September 2017 In the matter between: PSA obo RA Watkins (Union/ Applicant) and Department of Health-Free State (Respondent)
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. T/A KFC v ALEN FRASER
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1421/13 In the matter between: BEVERAL INVESTMENT T/A KFC v ALEN FRASER Applicant And ALEN FRASER
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Case no: D 822/10 In the matter between: BUILDERS TRADE DEPOT Applicant and CCMA Commissioner
More informationEASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] In the main application in this matter the applicant seeks to review and set aside
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR 214/01 CASE NO: J2498/08 In the matter between: NOVO NORDISK APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1439/15 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Applicant and R M MASHIGO First Respondent SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) GOLD FIELDS MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (KLOOF GOLD MINE) Applicant
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO: JR 2006/08 GOLD FIELDS MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (KLOOF GOLD MINE) Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More information