IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES /14 NAT
|
|
- Hollie Campbell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL HELD AT PRETORIA CASE NO: PSES /14 NAT In the matter between: SADTU Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION Respondent RULING ON POINTS IN LIMINE 1. DETAILS OF HEARING 1.1 The Applicant referred a dispute to the ELRC on the 20 th March It is alleged the dispute relates to a matter of mutual interest; 2. DETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION 2.1 The dispute was scheduled for a conciliation process on the 17 th April 2014 at 14H00 at the Education Labour Relations Council on 261 West Street, Centurion. The Applicant was represented by a SADTU official, Mr M. J. Galorale. The Respondent was represented by Attorney Crafford. Also present were Messrs Kutumela and Gayer from the Respondent;
2 2.2 The Respondent raised certain preliminary issues and the parties agreed to the following: Page 2 1. The Respondent wishes to raise certain preliminary points and will do so in writing within 14 days, i.e., 5 th May 2014; 2. The Applicant may reply thereto within 14 days of receipt of the points in limine, i.e., by the 19 th May 2014; 3. The Respondent may reply thereto within 7 days, i.e., by the 26 th May 2014; 4. The matter to be rescheduled for argument. 3. RESPONDENT S SUBMISSIONS The Respondent submitted as follows: 3.1 The Respondent is the employer and the Applicant a trade union involved in an alleged dispute regarding the remuneration structure within the Respondent s workplace; 3.2 During on or about April 2013 the Applicant referred a dispute to the Education Labour Relations Council (under case number PSES 26-13/14 NAT), concerning an alleged disparity in the size of the increments between notches within the remuneration structure of the Respondent; 3.3 In this regard the Applicant alleged that its members were entitled to notches of 1,5% whilst the size of a notch was only 1%. Accordingly the Applicant demanded that the notch be increased to 1,5%;
3 3.4 The matter was conciliated and the nature of the dispute argued extensively between the parties. Consequently a ruling was issued by panellist Brian Currin N.O. that the dispute between the parties was one of Page 3 right and had to be arbitrated; 3.5 On the date of the arbitration of the first dispute Applicant applied for a postponement on the premise that no referral to arbitration had been made by Applicant and that the representatives of Applicant were due to appear before the remuneration commission established by the President. The dispute has not been set down after that point and has not as yet been arbitrated. It is accordingly still pending; 3.6 Subsequently and on 20 March 2014 a new referral form was served on the Respondent by the Applicant. The basis of this referral was once again a demand that the increments between the notches in the Respondent s remuneration structure be increased from 1% to 1.5%; 3.7 Applicant is clearly of the view that they can rectify and/or circumvent the process and ruling made in respect of the first referral by referring afresh the dispute which was not resolved to their satisfaction in the first instance; 3.8 In the referral form itself it is acknowledged that the dispute referred during March 2014 is part and parcel of a current and existing facilitation process between the parties. As has been submitted herein above the dispute is also the subject of the first referral by the Applicant which has not yet been arbitrated; 3.9 Insofar as the subject matter of both referrals and the dispute between the parties pertains to a demand by the Applicant for an additional 0.5% increase in the pay progression of educators (and/or the same increase in the size of the notches between the different salary levels of educators) the disputes, it is submitted, remains the same;
4 3.10 At present there is no legislative mechanism in the Labour Relations Act and/or rule within the ELRC which prevents the referral of the same Page 4 dispute twice prior to the first dispute being finally decided on. The common law does however provide recourse insofar is the current circumstances are concerned; 3.11 In this regard the res judicata legal principle applies once a final decision is made on a dispute or claim and directs that the same dispute and/or claim cannot be made by a litigant thereafter; 3.12 Similarly and before a dispute and/or claim is finally decided on and whilst the dispute is sub judice the principle of lis alibi pendens assists a litigant to prevent two tribunals and/or courts adjudicating on the same matter; 3.13 The lis alibi pendens principle was articulated by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of Nestlé (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Mars Inc 2001 (4) SA 542 (SCA) as follows: The defence of lis alibi pendens shares features in common with the defence of res judicata because they have a common underlying principle which is that there should be finality in litigation. Once a suit has been commenced before a tribunal that is competent to adjudicate upon it the suit must generally be brought to its conclusion before that tribunal and should not be replicated (lis alibi pendens). By the same token the suit will not be permitted to be revived once it has been brought to its proper conclusion (res judicata). The same suit, between the same parties, should be brought only once and finally The above finding by the Supreme Court of Appeal has been approved by the Labour Court and is consistent with the underlying spirit and principles of the Labour Relations Act, which is the effective resolution of labour disputes;
5 3.15 In Socratous v Grindstone Investments 2011 (6) SA 325 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles referred to in the above Page 5 and went on to refer with approval to the following passage by Voet (Gane s translation) vol 6 at 560: Exception of lis pendens also requires same persons, thing and cause. The exception that a suit is already pending is quite akin to the exception of res judicata, inasmuch as, when a suit is pending before another judge, this exception is granted just so often as, and in all those cases in which, after a suit has been ended there is room for the exception res judicata, in terms of what has already been said. Thus the suit must already have started to be mooted before another judge between the same persons, about the same matter and on the same cause, since the place where a judicial proceeding has once been taken up is also the place where it ought to be given its ending Similarly in Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd v The World of Marble and Granite CC (2013) SCA 129 the court held that: As its name indicates, a plea of lis alibi pendens is based on the proposition that the dispute (lis) between the parties is being litigated elsewhere and therefore it is inappropriate for it to be litigated in the court in which the plea is raised. The policy underpinning it is that there should be a limit to the extent to which the same issue is litigated between the same parties and that it is desirable that there be finality in litigation. The courts are also concerned to avoid a situation where different courts pronounce on the same issue with the risk that they may reach differing conclusions. It is a plea that has been recognized by our courts for over 100 years Given that the first and second disputes involve the same parties, the same issues of fact, and the same cause of action, the special plea of lis alibi pendens must find application in the current instance;
6 3.18 It is submitted that it will not be in the interest of either party that different processes be run parallel to one another and might conceivably reach Page 6 different outcomes on the same dispute; 3.19 As a means to skirt the application of the exception or special plea of lis alibi pendens the Applicant has expressed an intention to withdraw its first dispute in favour of pursuing the second and current dispute. Respondent submits that doing so would not cure the fact that the second dispute is a duplication of the first and would attract the exception of lis alibi pendens; 3.20 In this regard it is submitted that it would be untenable in law for a litigant to be able to simply withdraw its dispute and re-refer the same dispute simply because it was not satisfied with the outcome of the first. A simple example would be that the CCMA makes a ruling that legal representation would not be allowed an applicant in a dispute. The chaos which would ensue if such Applicant would be allowed to withdraw the dispute and simply re-refer it and apply afresh for legal representation to be afforded him, can easily be seen. It is essential to our legal system that findings and/or rulings by courts and tribunals should be final and binding; 3.21 In Verhagen v Abramowitz 1960 (4) SA 942 (C) the court held that: When the matter has been referred to an arbitrator for a decision and an award has been given the situation is materially altered. Thus in Strutt v Chalmers and Another, 1959 (2) SA 536 (N), it was held that a party to an arbitration is not entitled to seek a decision of the Court on the very same matters already referred to arbitration, and when an award has in fact been made it has been held that such an award is equivalent to lis finita and as between the parties the matter is res judicata (Schoeman v Van Rensburg, 1942 TPD 175 at p 177).
7 3.22 Although the court in Verhagen was required to consider the finality of an award, it is submitted that the same principles should apply to a ruling properly issued by an arbitrator and/or conciliator in a dispute, as such a ruling is clearly intended to be binding on the parties. This would be the only tenable application of the law which would not lead to extreme legal Page 7 uncertainty; 3.23 It is submitted accordingly that the withdrawal of the first dispute would not automatically render the second and current referral competent and justiciable and it is respectfully submitted that the referral must be disallowed and/or dismissed for that reason; 3.24 In any event and should the Applicant legally be able to discard the initial ruling by withdrawing the first dispute (which is denied), it has not done so to date. In the circumstances the current dispute remains subject to the principle of lis alibi pendens and should be dismissed for that reason; 3.25 In addition to the submissions highlighted herein above the Respondent contends that the second and current dispute should in any event be regarded as premature as the parties are not yet in dispute regarding the alleged demand which has been recorded in the second referral form. This is evident from the fact that the Applicant has itself noted in its referral form that the parties are engaged in a facilitation process concerning the exact same subject matter and facts that form the subject matter of the current referral. Insofar as the parties have not as yet completed the facilitation process, the parties are not as yet deadlocked and remain involved in discussions regarding these issues; 3.26 In would be in direct contrast to the spirit and purport of the Labour Relations Act for the parties own informal attempts at resolving the potential dispute between them to be abruptly and prematurely terminated through a referral to a dispute tribunal; 4. APPLICANT S SUBMISSIONS
8 The Applicant submitted as follows: 4.1 During April 2013 the Applicant referred a dispute to the Education Labour Page 8 Relations Council (under case number PSES 26-13/14 NAT); 4.2 The dispute was conciliated by Mr. Brian Currin, a panelist of the ELRC. As part of the conciliation Mr. Currin issued a ruling classifying the dispute as one of right, which had to be arbitrated; 4.3 The matter was automatically set down for arbitration before Adv. P van Tonder. At the arbitration it was common cause that the Applicant had filed no arbitration referral and the arbitration therefore did not commence. It must be noted that at this point, the nature of the dispute was the interpretation / application of Collective Agreement 1 of 2012 of the PSCBC, a matter which the ELRC has no jurisdiction on, as the Collective Agreement is signed at the PSCBC; 4.4 Following its consultation with its lawyers, the Applicant decided to withdraw the dispute (under case number PSES 26-13/14 NAT) referred to the ELRC as it was advised that the ELRC would not have jurisdiction on this matter. This matter is no longer pending following its withdrawal. It would appear that the actual withdrawal of the dispute took long and was only done on the date of this second matter; 4.5 The ELRC sent out a letter confirming that the dispute, under case number PSES 26-13/14 NAT has been withdrawn and has been closed in the ELRC files. This means that this dispute cannot be reopened; 4.6 Following the decision to withdraw the initial referral, On 20 March 2014, the Applicant referred this matter to the ELRC, seeking to establish a new right, demanding a 0,5% notch increment within the remuneration structure of the Respondent;
9 4.7 It is common cause that this demand dates far back and that numerous meetings were held between the parties attempting to negotiate a resolution in this regard; Page While the substance of the dispute might be similar, the categorisation of the dispute and the dispute path differs materially. The initial dispute was based on an existing right as per Resolution 1 of 2012 of the PSCBC, upon discovering that the said collective agreement did not expressly confer the right, the Applicant then sought to establish the right; 4.9 The Applicant submits further: 4.10 AD PAR 1-4 The contents of this paragraph are accepted; 4.11 AD PAR 5 The contents of this paragraph are noted. The Applicant disputes that the dispute is pending, as the dispute was withdrawn and the ELRC confirmed that it has closed the file; 4.12 AD PAR 6 The contents of this paragraph are noted; 4.13 AD PAR 7 The contents of this paragraph are denied. Following the ruling issued by Mr. B Currin, the matter was set down for arbitration wherein the Applicant clearly stated that the matter was about the interpretation / application of Resolution 1 of 2012 of the PSCBC and clearly the ELRC has no jurisdiction in this regard. Following legal advice, the Applicant also understood that the rights it is claiming under Resolution 1 of 2012 is not
10 clearly defined in the said agreement and consequently it chose to demand a new right. Even if the Respondent was correct in its argument, there is no legal basis to claim that the Applicant is bound by the first referral. The Applicant has filed no pleadings in this regard ad consequently the Applicant cannot be confined to an incorrect referral; Page AD PAR 8 The contents of this paragraph are misleading. The facilitation was initiated by the ELRC and the Facilitator, Adv. Bono explained in the first sitting of the facilitation that this was an off the record process to attempt to resolve the matter and it was parallel to the ELRC formal processes. The parties are not bound by the facilitation; 4.15 AD PAR 9 The contents of this paragraph are misleading. While the content of the two disputes might be similar, the ELRC has no jurisdiction on interpretation / application of a PSCBC resolution 1 of It is common cause that the ELRC has no resolution on the size of the notches between the different salary levels of educators the size of the notches between the different salary levels of educators. Consequently the ELRC can never have jurisdiction of this matter in the form that the dispute was initially referred; 4.16 AD PAR The contents of this paragraph are noted AD PAR 12 The contents of this paragraph are misleading. The dispute is not before two forums. The first matter has been withdrawn and the ELRC has closed the file, so the file is as good as non-existent; 4.18 AD PAR 13-22
11 The contents of this paragraph are noted. The Applicant disputes that the principles of lis alibi pendens and res judicata are applicable on this matter. It is common cause that the first matter was not finalised, hence the Applicant could withdraw it. The Applicant cannot be forced with continue with a dispute it has withdrawn, more so a dispute that the ELRC has closed; Page AD PAR 23 The contents of this paragraph are denied. The Applicant is dumbstruck by the Employer s schizophrenic conduct of wanting to dictate to the Applicant which dispute it must refer and which one it cannot refer, also which dispute the ELRC can entertain and which one it cannot. The Applicant is dominis litis, and in this regard has been advised that the right it sought to enforce under the first dispute was not expressly stated and that it might prove difficult to prove and therefore it was easier to rather seek to establish a new right; 4.20 AD PAR The contents of this paragraph are denied. I have already dealt with this issue above. The Applicant has already explained the status of the facilitation. It is shocking that the Respondent would argue that there must be deadlock at the facilitation, a process initiated by the ELRC, and one which does not affect the formal processes of the ELRC dispute resolution mechanisms; 4.21 AD PAR 26 The contents of this paragraph are denied. The assertion of the Respondent in this regard is without any legal basis, and is an embarrassment; 4.22 The Applicant s case in this regard is very simple. It referred the first matter as a matter of mutual interest, Mr. B Currin ruled that the matter was an interpretation / application of a Collective Agreement. At the arbitration hearing the Applicant argued that the resolution in question in which it derived the right to be applied was embedded in Resolution 1 of 2012 of the PSCBC. The Applicant s lawyers advised the applicant that PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 did not clearly provide for the right. The
12 Applicant then withdrew the dispute and now sought to demand the right at the ELRC; 4.23 The Applicant submits that the Respondent s point in limine be dismissed. Page RESPONDENT S REPLY 5.1 The Applicant argues that the current dispute is different from the first dispute as in the newest dispute the Applicant seeks to establish a right which it previously believed its members had to 1.5% notch increments; 5.2 This right, the Applicant avers, it believed it had in terms of PSCBC Resolution 1 of The Applicant does not however assert which part of the resolution the alleged right may have originated from; 5.3 It is submitted in this regard that the current or newest dispute is no different from the first. The arguments raised in the Respondents Heads of Argument are repeated herein insofar as this argument is concerned and it is once again submitted that the Applicants current dispute is not competent for all of the reasons previously stated; 5.4 Further to the above, PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 is a multi-term salary agreement which settles salary increases and other conditions of service within the industry until March Negotiations between the parties in respect of a new multi-term agreement will commence shortly within the industry; 5.5 Insofar as the Applicant now alleges that it is seeking to establish a right which derives from PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012, the Applicant is bound by the provisions of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 and a mutual interest dispute and/or the issuing of a certificate of outcome referring the dispute to strike/ lock-out is therefore not competent until the expiry of the multiterm agreement;
13 5.6 This is of course so in terms of the provisions of Section 64 of 65 of the Labour Relations Act which prevents industrial action and disputes Insofar as the Applicants in any event allege that the previous dispute should properly have been brought in the PSCBC, the same argument holds true for the current dispute, which as the argument now goes relates to Page 13 obtaining a right to a 0.5% increase in the size between notches; 5.7 If it is alleged that this dispute relates to terms and conditions of employment, same dispute is regulated by a PSCBC collective agreement which is currently still valid and binding. So also on this basis, the Applicants are not entitled to have a certificate of outcome issued. Whilst the Respondent is not in agreement that the first dispute, relating to an increase in the increments between notches and/or pay progression; 5.8 Accordingly and as per the Applicant s newest version of its dispute, the ELRC will respectfully still not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute; 5.9 There was a ruling by Mr B Currin classifying the dispute as a rights dispute, which the matter had to be arbitrated. The Arbitration did not proceed due to the Applicants submission that it had not filed an arbitration referral; 5.10 The Applicant argues that it filed a withdrawal with the ELRC and therefore this matter is not pending with the ELRC. The Respondent disagrees with this contention and re-integrates that there was a finding that was issued with regard to this matter and that this finding is binding on both the parties. It can therefore not be that a party may withdraw a dispute and re-refer the same dispute; 5.11 The Respondent maintains that the first referral and the second referral relate to the same issue and the same demand by the Applicant. Considering the Applicants own admission that the ELRC did not have jurisdiction to deal with the first referral. The Respondent submits that the
14 ELRC does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the second referral and that such referral should be submitted to the PSCBC for consideration; 5.12 It is accordingly the Respondent's submission that the point in limine raised by it should be upheld; Page ANALYSIS 6.1 The submissions made by the parties were carefully considered. It is evident that the first referral by the Applicant was based on the application and interpretation of Resolution 1 of 2012 of the PSCBC; 6.2 The above dispute has been withdrawn. The Applicant subsequently referred a dispute relating to a matter of mutual interest. It is clear that the categorisation of the dispute is different and accordingly could not be stated to the same dispute as contended by the Respondent; 6.3 In relation to the Respondent s contention that the principles of lis alibi pendens and defence of res judicata are applicable cannot have application in the present matter as the first dispute has been withdrawn and accordingly it is not in another forum and there cannot be litigation pending; 6.4 I do not agree with Respondent s contention that the withdrawal of the first dispute and pursuing the second dispute is a duplication of the first dispute. The categorisation of the dispute in respect of different issues and the path of the dispute is different. The situation here is not analogous to the one the Respondent refers to in respect of legal representation in paragraph 20 of its submissions; 6.5 The Respondent s claim that the second referral is premature similarly does not support its claim that it is the same dispute as the first. The Respondent s claim also that the parties are involved in a facilitation process does not take the matter further as the disputes are categorised differently. The first dispute has been withdrawn and facilitation is a
15 voluntary process in the current context and does not affect the formal processes of the ELRC; 6.6 To argue that abandoning internal attempts in resolving potential disputes in resolving disputes through the referral is in direct contradiction to the Page 15 spirit and purport of the Labour Relations Act is not sustainable. The Act itself contains dispute resolution mechanisms; 6.7 The Respondent in its reply appears to raise a new issue that the second referral should be submitted to the PSCBC for consideration. This contention must fail as the crux of the Respondent s complaint is that the same dispute has been referred to as the previous. However the current dispute is one relating to a matter of mutual interest and this does not oust the jurisdiction of the ELRC; 6.8 Having regard to the above the Respondent s point in limine is dismissed; 6.9 Section 135(5) provides that when conciliation has failed or the 30 day period has expired the Commissioner must issue a certificate. The referral was made on the 27 th March The 30 day period has expired and accordingly it is competent to issue a certificate of non-resolution. DATED AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS THE _25 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER YUSUF NAGDEE ARBITRATOR
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC. TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 In the matter between: ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC PLAINTIFF and TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J1529/15 BONGA BLADWIN MAJOLA Applicant and MEC FOR ROADS & TRANSPORT: GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Respondent HOD FOR ROADS
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 informationIn the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which applicant seeks the following declaratory orders:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION & ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O JUDITH
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA Applicant and VANACHEM VANADIUM PRODUCTS (PTY) LTD Respondent
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 Not Reportable Case no: J1982/2013 In the matter between: NUMSA obo MEMBERS Applicant And MURRAY AND ROBERTS PROJECTS First
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 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 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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo P W MODITSWE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 1702/12 In the matter between - PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo P W MODITSWE Applicant
More informationPanellist/s: E. Tlhotlhalemaje Case No.: PSCB77-09/10 Date of Ruling: 20 APRIL In the MATTER between: JR MOKOENA & OTHERS (Union / Applicants)
RULING Panellist/s: E. Tlhotlhalemaje Case No.: PSCB77-09/10 Date of Ruling: 20 APRIL 2010 In the MATTER between: JR MOKOENA & OTHERS (Union / Applicants) And THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES (1 st Respondent)
More informationHELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
Reportable Delivered 180211 Edited 280311 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO J253/11 In the matter between: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 1 ST APPLICANT JOHANNESBURG
More informationDUDLEY CUPIDO Applicant. GLAXOSMITHKLINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COU R T OF SOUTH AFRICA H ELD AT CAPE TOWN CASE NO: C222/2004 In the matter between: DUDLEY CUPIDO Applicant and GLAXOSMITHKLINE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT MURPHY, AJ 1. The
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1780/14 In the matter between: BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD Applicant and ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION UNION
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA 80/16 In the matter between: PARDON RUKWAYA AND 31 OTHERS Appellants and THE KITCHEN BAR RESTAURANT Respondent Heard: 03 May 2017
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 information1. This is a ruling on an application for substitution of a party for an existing party in
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number J 1643/98 In the matter between JAN HENDRIK WHEELER R S MAHASHA FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT And J C J VAN RENSBURG MANIE STEYN
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 505/15 In the matter between: KAVITA RAMPERSAD Applicant and COMMISSIONER RICHARD BYRNE N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION FOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) CASE NUMBER: 72522/11 In the matter between: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICANT ENGINEERING COMPANY (PTY) LTD (IN BUSINESS RESCUE) and AERONAUTIQUE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS. TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS381/12 SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS Applicants and TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS Respondent Delivered: 15 July
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98. First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA Motion Engineering (Pty) Ltd
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98 In the matter between: O D Zaayman Applicant and Provincial Director: CCMA Gauteng First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 801/13 In the matter between: STEPHEN FIRE MNGOMEZULU First applicant
More informationLABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 66 OF 1995
LABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 66 OF 1995 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 29 NOVEMBER, 1995] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 11 NOVEMBER, 1996] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) This
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: J1812/2016 GOITSEMANG HUMA Applicant and COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH First Respondent MINISTER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 3659/98. In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA. Applicant. and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J 3659/98 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA MANUFACTURING (PTY)
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (NEASA)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Reportable JA02/2015 NATIONAL EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (NEASA) Appellant And METAL AND
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR2134/15 DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL First Respondent BARGAINING
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 informationANNEX V PROCEDURAL RULES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION OF CONTRACTS FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF)
ANNEX V PROCEDURAL RULES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION OF CONTRACTS FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF) I. INTRODUCTION Article 1 - Scope of application. Article 2 - Definitions. Article
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D818/00
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D818/00 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT [1] In this matter the applicant filed an application in which
More informationKUNGWINI RESIDENTIAL ESTATE AND ADVENTURE SPORT CENTRE LIMITED JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR603/03 In the matter between: KUNGWINI RESIDENTIAL ESTATE AND ADVENTURE SPORT CENTRE LIMITED Applicant and MR LUCKY MHLONGO N.O. THE
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2406/16 In the matter between: MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA Respondent Heard:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
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 informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT PARTIES: ERIC THOBILE MDYESHA APPLICANT And THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY FIRST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Heard at CAROLINA on 4 March 2002 CASE NUMBER: LCC 115/99 Before: Gildenhuys AJ Decided on: 15 March 2002 In the case between: COMBRINCK, H J Plaintiff and NHLAPO,
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN In the matter between: Case No: C 147/15 J I DU PREEZ Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL ( SALGBC
More informationDrafting Instructions for the Trade Marks Rules THE TRADE MARKS BILL, 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES
THE TRADE MARKS BILL, 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I- PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Fees. 4. Forms. PART II: REGISTRABILITY OF TRADE MARKS 5. Conversion to new classification
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) First Applicant THE CITY OF MATLOSANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Case No: J620/2014 In the matter between IMATU ABRAHAM GERHARDUS STRYDOM First Applicant Second applicant and THE CITY OF MATLOSANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
More informationIn the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg. Northern Training Trust. Third Respondent. Judgment
1 In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg In the matter between: Case number: JR268/ 02 Northern Training Trust Applicant and Josiah Maake Sita Gesina Maria Du Toit CCMA First Respondent
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 informationRULES FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN THE BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS AND PRIVATE PARTIES
RULES FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN THE BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS AND PRIVATE PARTIES Effective March 23, 2001 Scope of Application and Definitions Article 1 1. These Rules shall govern an arbitration
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 2634/13 SUNDUZA DORAH BALOYI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationTHE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SITTING IN CAPE TOWN)
THE COMPETITION APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SITTING IN CAPE TOWN) In the matter between 139/CAC/Feb16 GROUP FIVE LTD APPELLANT and THE COMPETITION COMMISSION FIRST RESPONDENT Coram: DAVIS JP, ROGERS
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between:
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between: HENRY GEORGE DAVID COCHRANE Appellant (Respondent a quo) and THE
More informationRULES FOR EXPEDITED ARBITRATION. of the Finland Chamber of Commerce
RULES FOR EXPEDITED ARBITRATION of the Finland Chamber of Commerce RULES FOR EXPEDITED ARBITRATION of the Finland Chamber of Commerce The English text prevails over other language versions. TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationCODE OF GOOD PRACTICE ON PICKETING (GenN 765 in GG of 15 May 1998)
LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 66 OF 1995 [ASSENTED TO 29 NOVEMBER 1995] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 11 NOVEMBER 1996] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) as amended by Labour Relations
More informationDISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES
DISPUTE RESOLUTION RULES First Issued: March 1998 Amended: November 1999 Amended: July 2000 Amended: September 2001 Amended: September 2003 Amended: October 2004 Amended: May 2005 Amended: September 2005
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) CASE NO: 16572/2018 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO IN THE MATIER BETWEEN : SOLIDARITY APPLICANT
More informationIt is hereby notified that the President has assented to the following Act which is hereby published for general information:-
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT No. 1877. 13 December 1995 NO. 66 OF 1995: LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995. It is hereby notified that the President has assented to the following Act which is hereby published for general
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 536/2016 In the matter between: RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED APPELLANT and JOHANNES JURGENS DU PLESSIS CHRISTO M ELOFF SC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D71/05 DATE HEARD 2005/02/11 DATE OF JUDGMENT 2005/02/21
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D71/05 DATE HEARD 2005/02/11 DATE OF JUDGMENT 2005/02/21 In the matter between H W JONKER APPLICANT and OKHAHLAMBA MUNICIPALITY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG. THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo A POTGIETER THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR2212/12 In the matter between: THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo A POTGIETER Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: J 1512/17 In the matter between: SANDI MAJAVU Applicant and LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ISAAC RAMPEDI N.O SPEAKER OF LESEDI LOCAL
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 18/CR/Mar01 In the matter concerning: The Competition Commission and South African Airways (Pty) Ltd DECISION This is an application brought by the
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) Case number: JR2343/05 In the matter between: SEEFF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Applicant And COMMISSIONER N. MBHELE N.O First Respondent COMMISSION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MOKGAETJI BERNICE KEKANA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 2536/12 In the matter between: MOKGAETJI BERNICE KEKANA Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 03/03539 DATE:26/10/2011 In the matter between: TECMED (PTY) LIMITED MILFORD, MICHAEL VOI HARRY BEGERE, WERNER HURWITZ,
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 09/2058 In the matter between: HARE, NEIL CLIVE Applicant and THE PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL NO 140 First Respondent MOTORSPORT SOUTH
More information(1 March 2015 to date) LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 66 OF (Gazette No , Notice No. 1877, dated 13 December 1995) Commencement:
(1 March 2015 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 1 March 2015, i.e. the date of commencement of the Legal Aid South Africa Act 39 of 2014 to date] LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 66 OF 1995
More informationIN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO
IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: TSELISO MOKEMANE LC/APN/30B/2013 1 ST APPLICANT And TLHAKO MOKHORO HER WORSHIP MRS. MOTEBELE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC
IN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC Appeal No.: 2315/2014 Applicant and KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC Respondent CORAM:
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE PILLAY ON 18 AUGUST Instructed by
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D218/03 DATE HEARD: 2003/08/08 2003/08/18 DATE DELIVERED: In the matter between: HOSPERSA MOULTRIE First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the application between:- KRAMER WEIHMANN & JOUBERT INC Application No: 3818/2011 Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: UNITED NATIONAL TRANSPORT UNION OBO MEMBERS Applicant And BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD
More informationWIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES
APPENDIX 3.17 WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES (as from 1 October 2002) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Abbreviated Expressions Article 1 In these Rules: Arbitration Agreement means
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE [1] REPORTABLE: YES / NO [2] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO [3] REVISED DATE SIGNATURE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED Case number: 39959/2014..... In the matter between: GR5
More informationTHE ELECTRICITY ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
The Rules of this Association were amended with effect from the 1 st January, 1993 in the manner herein set out. This is to allow for the reference to the Association, in accordance with its Rules, of
More informationNONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI THE LAND REFORM THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION FULL BENCH APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) APPEAL CASE NO. CA25/2016 Reportable Yes / No In the matter between: NONTSAPO GETRUDE BANGANI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 20905/13 In the matter between: MOTOR FINANCE CORPORATION (A DIVISION OF NEDBANK) PLAINTIFF And DEON DANIEL PETERSEN DEFENDANT
More informationADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. handed down on 28 March JUDGMENT IN CASE No. 71. X v/ Secretary-General
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal handed down on 28 March 2012 JUDGMENT IN CASE No. 71 X v/ Secretary-General The English version constitutes the authentic text. 2, rue André
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: J812\07 NIREN INDARDAV SINGH Applicant and SA RAIL COMMUTER CORPORATION LTD t\a METRORAIL Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationAct relating to the Courts of Justice of 13 August 1915 No. 5 (Courts of Justice Act)
Act relating to the Courts of Justice of 13 August 1915 No. 5 (Courts of Justice Act) Norway (Unofficial translation) Disclaimer This unofficial translation of the Act relating to the Courts of Justice
More information[1]This is an interlocutory application in terms of which the applicants seek leave to
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JS 508/06 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICA TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION NOMAHLUBI MABIJA 1 ST APPLICANT 2 ND APPLICANT
More informationJUDGMENT AND REASONS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS / POSTPONEMENT
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION CASE NO: In the matter between: MR PRICE GROUP LIMITED and NATIONAL CREDIT REGULA TOR APPLICANT RESPONDENT lnre: THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULA TOR and MR
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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT ARAMEX SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD FIRST RESPONDENT EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO J2265/13 In the matter between: ARAMEX SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and SATAWU INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
More informationREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT. Published by Authority NO. 23] FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4 [2016 EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS ACT 2016
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT Published by Authority NO. 23] FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4 [2016 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 1st November 2016 at 5:00
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) CONTENTS
CONTENTS Rule 1 Scope of Application and Interpretation 1 Rule 2 Notice, Calculation of Periods of Time 3 Rule 3 Notice of Arbitration 4 Rule 4 Response to Notice of Arbitration 6 Rule 5 Expedited Procedure
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC.
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No: 3818/2011 KRAMER WEIHMANN AND JOUBERT INC. Plaintiff and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS
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 Not Reportable Case no: JS 15/2013 KONDILE BANKANE JOHN Applicant and M TECH INDUSTRIAL Respondent Heard: 14 October 201
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no J 633/16 In the matter between GEORGE MAKUKAU Applicant And RAMOTSHERE MOILOA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent THOMPSON PHAKALANE
More informationNICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM IN CONTRACT CONTRACT PROVIDING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 1606/01 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: NICK S FISHMONGER HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF AND ALMON MANUEL ALVES DE SOUSA DEFENDANT CLAIM
More informationAXTON MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CC...Applicant METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 2778/2011 In the matter between: AXTON MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CC...Applicant and METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Respondent MONDE CONSULTING
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Food and Allied Workers Union obo J Gaoshubelwe v Pieman s Pantry (Pty) Limited MEDIA SUMMARY
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Food and Allied Workers Union obo J Gaoshubelwe v Pieman s Pantry (Pty) Limited 1 CCT 236/16 Date of hearing: 3 August 2017 Date of judgment: 20 March 2018 MEDIA SUMMARY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 685/16 In the matter between: Sandile NGOBENI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR
More information