REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
|
|
- Shona Holmes
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 Delivered: 19 December 2014 JUDGMENT TLHOTLHALEMAJE, AJ Introduction and background: [1] This is an opposed application for condonation for the late filing of the applicant s statement of case. In his statement of claim, the applicant alleged that he was dismissed due to his religious beliefs, which dismissal was automatically unfair as contemplated in section 187 (1) (f) of the Labour Relations Act (the LRA) [2] The applicant was employed by the respondent in terms of a three months fixed term contract commencing from 20 September 2011 to 31 December The contract was extended for a further three months and was due to expire at the end of March The applicant was advised that his contract
2 2 would not be extended or renewed in terms of a letter handed to him on 1 March 2012, which inter alia stated the following: The non-renewal is due to a discrepancy between the company s culture and values and your own, which has been found to be detrimental to the professional relations between yourself and other colleagues [3] In the light of the above, the applicant concluded that the reason for the nonrenewal of the contract was due to his religious beliefs as he was a member of the Zion Christian Church, and was thus being unfairly discriminated against. On 19 April 2012, his then attorneys of record referred an alleged unfair discrimination claim and a dispute pertaining to non-renewal of a contract to the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (The MEIBC). On 28 April 2012, he was advised by the MEIBC that he needed to specify the nature of his claim since only the CCMA had jurisdiction in respect of unfair discrimination claims. He nevertheless on 20 August 2012 filed a request for arbitration at the MEIBC, and the dispute was set down for arbitration on 28 November That arbitration however did not proceed. [4] Despite the above referrals to the MEIBC, he referred another dispute in respect of an alleged unfair dismissal to the CCMA on 2 May A certificate of outcome was issued in this regard on 4 June The applicant had then referred the matter for arbitration together with an application for condonation. The application for condonation was heard on 17 January 2013, resulting in it being dismissed on 22 January On 27 February 2013, the applicant had referred another unfair discrimination claim to the CCMA, and a certificate of outcome was issued on 3 April The applicant s statement of claim was filed with this court on 17 April 2013, which was followed by an application for condonation. The legal framework in respect of applications for condonation and discussion: [5] The court s discretion when considering applications for condonation derive from the provisions of section 191 (11) (b) of the LRA and also Rule 12 of the Rules of the Conduct of Proceedings. Thus on good cause shown, the Court
3 3 may condone the non-observance of the time frames stipulated in section 191 of the LRA or in its rules. [6] The principles surrounding the granting of condonation are well known as were articulated in Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1 in the following terms: In deciding whether sufficient cause has been shown, the basic principle is that the Court has a discretion, to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all the facts, and in essence it is a matter of fairness to both sides. Among the facts usually relevant are the degree of lateness, the explanation therefor, the prospects of success and the importance of the case. Ordinarily these facts are interrelated, they are not individually decisive, save of course that if there are no prospects of success there would be no point in granting condonation. Any attempt to formulate a rule of thumb would only serve to harden the arteries of what should be a flexible discretion. What is needed is an objective conspectus of all the facts. Thus a slight delay and a good explanation may help to compensate prospects which are not strong. Or the importance of the issue and strong prospects may tend to compensate for a long delay. And the Respondent s interests in finality must not be overlooked The degree of lateness: [7] The applicant contends that the delay in filing the statement of case is about 116 days, whilst the respondent holds the view that the delay is in fact 325 days calculated from when the dispute first arose on 1 March Section 10 (2) provides that any party to a dispute concerning matters under Chapter II may refer a dispute to the CCMA within six months after the act or omission that allegedly constitutes unfair discrimination. In terms of section 10 (5), a party may refer a dispute after conciliation by the CCMA to this Court for adjudication. The provisions in the Employment Equity Act do not specify the time frames within which the dispute may be referred to the court with any particularity other than by reference to section 10(7) which provides that: (4) SA 531 (A) at 532B-E
4 4 The relevant provisions of Parts C and D of Chapter VII of the Labour Relations Act, with the changes required by context, apply in respect of a dispute in terms of this Chapter. [8] The Labour Appeal Court in SATAWU obo Members v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd and others 2 recently confirmed the legal position as set out in its earlier decision in NEHAWU obo Mofokeng and Others v Charlotte Theron Childrens Home 3 regarding the time periods applicable in respect of disputes under section 10 (6) of the Employment Equity Act. In this regard, the LAC in SATAWU obo Members made reference to NEHAWU 4 where it was held as follows: Reading section 10(6) and 10(7) of the Equity Act together, it would appear that the Equity Act must be read together with the applicable provisions of the Act. By reference to the words with the changes required by the context in section 10(7) the 90-day time period as provided for in section 136(1) of the Act, which itself appears in Part C of Chapter VII of the Act, becomes applicable to the dispute. In other words, although the present dispute involves adjudication after an unresolved conciliation and section 136(1) refers expressly to arbitration, the savings provision in section 10(7) of the Equity Act then becomes operative; hence the 90-day requirement is of equal application in the new context to the adjudication as envisaged in section 10(6) of the Equity Act 5 [9] The legal position therefore as confirmed in SATAWU obo Members 6 is that the 90 day time limit set by the Labour Relations Act applies to referrals of disputes to the Labour Court under the Employment Equity Act following conciliation by the CCMA. [10] It was correctly pointed out on behalf of the respondent that there are problems with each aspect of the application before the court. The applicant s contention was that his statement of case was supposed to have been filed on 10 October 2012, having calculated the 90 days period from 4 June Case no: JA 54/13 3 [2004] 10 BLLR 979 (LAC). 4 At para 5 5 At para 10 6 Supra
5 5 when the CCMA issued a certificate of outcome. If indeed reliance is placed on this certificate of outcome, the delay, which the applicant has to account for, is about 221 days, and not 116 days as he had alleged. That period is excessive in the extreme. [11] It is further significant to note that the applicant does not place any reliance on a certificate of outcome issued by the CCMA on 03 April 2013 in respect of the alleged unfair discrimination referral. There is no indication that an application for condonation was filed and considered prior to that certificate of outcome being issued by the CCMA. This is even more concerning when it is taken into account that the CCMA had already declined condonation previously on 22 January It is therefore unclear how the certificate of outcome was issued by the CCMA on 3 April 2013 in circumstances where the applicant was clearly way out of time. If the applicant had placed reliance on the latter certificate of outcome, the matter would have been easily disposed of, as there would have been no need for him to apply for condonation since the statement of case was filed within the requisite 90 days from the issuing of the certificate by the CCMA. This is even moreso since there is no indication that any steps were taken to set aside that certificate of outcome. The explanation for the delay: [12] As already indicated, a delay of 221 days in approaching the court is excessive in the extreme. It is trite that an application for condonation should be filed without delay as soon as a party to litigation becomes aware of the need to file such an application 7. To enable this court to properly exercise its discretion, a party seeking condonation must set out all the facts and circumstances relating to the delay, and most importantly, must provide a satisfactory explanation for each period of the delay. Any period of delay that is unaccounted for, will result in an indulgence being refused 8. 7 See Meintjies v HD Combrinck (Edms) Bpk 1961 (1) SA 262 (A) at 263 H-264B. 8 See NUMSA and another v Hillside Aluminium [2005] 6 BLLR 601 (LC)
6 6 [13] In Moila v Shai N.O. and Others 9, the court (per Zondo JP as he then was) had commented on the period of delay in that matter by stating that; I do not have the slightest hesitation in concluding that this is a case where the period of delay is excessive and the appellant's purported explanation for the delay is no explanation at all. I accept that the case is very important to the appellant. However, the weight to be attached to this factor is too limited to count for anything where the period of delay is as excessive as is the case in this matter and the explanation advanced is no explanation at all. If ever there was a case in which one can conclude that good cause has not been shown for condonation without even considering the prospects of success, then this is it. Where, in an application for condonation, the delay is excessive and no explanation has been given for that delay or an explanation has been given but such explanation amounts to no explanation at all, I do not think that it is necessary to consider the prospects of success. [14] The applicant in explaining the delay appears to put the blame squarely on his erstwhile attorneys, who had assisted him in referring the dispute to the MEIBC. In this regard, he averred that his first set of attorneys (Keet Attorneys) had assisted him in referring the dispute to the MEIBC. Notwithstanding the fact that the MEIBC lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, Keet Attorneys persisted in referring the dispute for arbitration after a certificate of outcome was issued on 4 June A few days before the matter was to be arbitrated, Keet Attorneys effectively left him in the limbo in November [15] He had then approached his attorneys of record, (Jansens Attorneys) who had advised the MEIBC that it lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter. The statement of claim could not be immediately filed as Jacques Jansen, the attorney assisting him, was medically unfit from 15 November until 18 January 2013, and further since the attorneys offices were closed between 14 December 2012 and 7 January Further as a result of his attorneys not having consulted with him or alternatively not being able to get hold of him, the first meaningful consultation took place on 26 March (2007) 28 ILJ 1028 (LAC) at para 34
7 7 [16] For the purposes of the hearing of this application, the applicant was now assisted by a third set of attorneys. I have no hesitation in concluding that the explanation proffered by the applicant in respect of the excessive delay amounts to no explanation at all. On his version, Keet Attorneys assisted him at least until November 2012, during which time, he had referred the dispute to both the MEIBC and the CCMA. The Courts have traditionally demonstrated their reluctance to penalise a litigant on account of the conduct of his representative. In equal measure, the Courts have emphasied that there is a limit beyond which a litigant cannot escape the results of his representative s lack of diligence 10. In my view, it is not sufficient for the applicant to simply allege that he had made regular enquiries with Keet Attorneys and was always assured of good progress of his matter when no further details are spelt out in that regard. It is not known when these enquiries were made and how these assurances were given. There is no account given of the prolonged periods between when the matter was initially referred and when Keet Attorneys abandoned the applicant. [17] The respondent had pointed out that Jansens Attorneys were advised as early as December 2012 that there was a need to file an application for condonation as the time periods had elapsed. It was also pointed out that allegations about Jansen being medically unfit were not corroborated by way of a medical certificate. Worst still, since the applicant is dominus litis in this case, it cannot be an excuse that consultations could not be held with him as he could not be contacted. It clearly shows the seriousness with which he dealt with the matter. In the light of the excessive delays which clearly remain unexplained, this application should be dismissed on this basis alone. For the sake of completeness however, I will deal with the other aspects of this application. Prospects of success: [18] In view of the failure to proffer an explanation for the extreme delay in filing a statement of response, the applicant s prospects of success become 10 Saloojee & another NNO v Minister of community Development 1965 (2) SA 135 (A). See also Buthelezi & others v Eclipse Foundries Ltd (1997) 18 ILJ 633 (A) at 638I 639A)
8 8 insignificant. The Labour Appeal Court in NUM v Council for Mineral Technology 11 made this point when it held that;. without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial and without prospects of success, no matter how good the explanation for the delay, an application for condonation should be refused [19] The applicant s prospects of success on the merits are abysmal. Based on the letter he got, he concluded that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of his religion when clearly there is no basis for making that conclusion. The applicant in this regard also relies on an encounter with one of his erstwhile colleagues, who had questioned his affiliation with the ZCC, and asked him about his religious practices. He also based his claim on an encounter with one of the site managers after he had confronted the latter about the enquiries made by his erstwhile colleague about his religion. Prima facie, there is no basis for any conclusion to be made that the respondent as the employer had discriminated against him. The unfair discrimination alleged is clearly a figment of the applicant s imagination. [20] The respondent in its answering affidavit had pointed out that reference to discrepancy in its letter of 1 March 2012 was made to the fact that the applicant was not fitting into its corporate culture and values. Furthermore, it was not the applicant s case that he had expected that his contract would be renewed, which issue would have taken this matter in a different direction. It is trite that a case cannot be made out in heads of argument. The applicant had attempted to do by contending in his heads of argument that he had an expectation that his contract would be renewed. His case has always been that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religion. Other considerations and conclusion: [21] It cannot be doubted that the dilatoriness of the applicant has severely prejudiced the respondent, which is entitled to finality. In Brummer v Gorfil BLLR 209 (LAC) at p211 paragraph G-H
9 9 Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd 12, Jacoob J had stated that the interests of justice should be an overall consideration when dealing with applications for condonation. In my view, in the light of the extreme nature of the delay in filing a statement of defence, a lack of explanation in that regard, the general dilatoriness on the part of the applicant and his chosen representatives, his lack of prospects of success on the merits, and the severe prejudice suffered by the respondent as a consequence of the unexplained delays, it should be concluded that the applicant has not shown good cause. In this regard, the interests of justice dictate that the application for condonation should not be granted. Having had regard to considerations of law and fairness, I am further of the view that a cost order is not appropriate given the circumstances of this case. Order: i. The application for condonation is dismissed. ii. There is no order as to costs. Tlhotlhalemaje, AJ Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa 12 [2000] (2) SA 837 (CC) at 839 F
10 10 Appearances: For the Applicant: For the Respondent: Mr. F Moloi of Moloi Attorneys Ms. M Chenia of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Attorneys
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BENJAMIN LEHLOHONOLO MOSIKILI
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1045/2011 In the matter between: BENJAMIN LEHLOHONOLO MOSIKILI Applicant and MASS CASH (PTY) LTD t/a QWAQWA CASH & CARRY
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 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 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 informationPENNY FARTHING ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: PR 61/17 JOHNY BARENDS Applicant and BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY COMMISSIONER THEMBA
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE COLD CHAIN (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1053/13 In the matter between: THE COLD CHAIN (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER FAIZEL MOOI N.O COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no JR 1218/2015 In the matter between: HYGIENIK (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT ABRAHAM HERCULES ENGELBRECHT EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR908/11 In the matter between ABRAHAM HERCULES ENGELBRECHT Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL
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 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 informationTHE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Y. VELDHUIZEN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 1884/07 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT AND Y. VELDHUIZEN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT NYATHELA AJ Introduction1
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 informationMOLAHLEHI AJ IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: JR 1552/06. In the matter between:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: JR 1552/06 In the matter between: THE ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION APPLICANT AND ADVOCATE PAUL PRETORIUS SC NO UNIVERSITY
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 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 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, 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 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 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
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J317/14 In the matter between: CBI ELECTRICAL: AFRICAN CABLES A DIVISION OF ATC (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATIONAL UNION OF
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TOWN) CASE NUMBER: C177/2016 DATE: 12 OCTOBER 2017
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TOWN) CASE NUMBER: C177/16 DATE: 12 OCTOBER 17 In the matter between: AM MODIOKGOTLA Applicant and HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT: DEPT
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 717/13 In the matter between: REAGAN JOHN ERNSTZEN Applicant and RELIANCE
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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT EDWIN NCHABELENG & 2 OTHERS LAPACE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J580/2013 EDWIN NCHABELENG & 2 OTHERS Applicants and LAPACE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard:
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 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 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 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: D 955/17 SOS PROTEC SURE Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN REVOLUTIONARY ALLIED WORKERS UNION Respondent
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MICHAEL MATHIESON LYALL JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable/Reportable Case No: JS171/14 In the matter between: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG Applicant and MICHAEL MATHIESON
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KUSOKHANYA ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTIONS CC
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 875/2012 In the matter between: KUSOKHANYA ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTIONS CC Applicant and THEMBA HLATSWAYO
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 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: J 1499/17 LATOYA SAMANTHA SMITH CHRISTINAH MOKGADI MAHLANE First Applicant Second Applicant and OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE MEMME SEJOSENGWE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. Second Respondent RULING ON CONDONATION AND
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Of interest to other judges Case no: JR 1567/10 In the application for leave to appeal between: OFFICE OF
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 information[1] In this matter the Court is called upon to decide two issues. They both
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF COURT AFRICA Held in Johannesburg Case no. J2456/98 In the matter between TIGER WHEELS BABELEGI (PTY) LTD t/a TSW INTERNATIONAL Applicant and NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS OF SOUTH
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 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 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 663/05 In the matter between: EDWIN DICHABE Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT First
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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JS1162/14 & J2361-14 In the matter between: SACCAWU P DZIVHANI AND 12 OTHERS First Applicant Second to Further Applicants and SOUTHERN
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) JOHANNESBURG CITY PARKS ADVOCATE JAFTA MPHAHLANI N.O.
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between: CASE NO. JR 1028/06 JOHANNESBURG CITY PARKS Applicant And ADVOCATE JAFTA MPHAHLANI N.O. THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
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 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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: JR 1343/10 NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE Applicant and FABRICATED STEEL
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 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 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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J2110/2016 Case no: J2078/16 In the matter between STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and NEHAWU obo NETSHIVUNGULULU AND
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIEMAN S PANTRY (PTY) LIMITED
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 236/16 FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION obo J GAOSHUBELWE Applicant and PIEMAN S PANTRY (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Food
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR941/14 In the matter between: EDCON LIMITED Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER
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 informationIN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: PFA/GA/6580/2006/LCM In the complaint between: R M MOTHIBA & OTHERS Complainants and LIBERTY LIFE PENSION FUND 1 st Respondent
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 JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J504/99 In the matter between: MACEBO MATTHEWS MAFUYEKA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION SALEEM SEEDAT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98. In the matter between:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98 In the matter between: SUN INTERNATIONAL (SOUTH AFRICA) LIMITED TRADING AS MORULA SUN HOTEL AND CASINO and COMMISSION FOR
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 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 informationIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CC Case No: CCT 228/14 TOYOTA SA MOTORS (PTY) LTD Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER: TERRENCE SERERO RETAIL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION MAKOMA
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 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 SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: J 1902 /16 In the matter between: SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD Applicant and ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION UNION (AMCU) First Respondent
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 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 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 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: JR 2080/13 In the matter between: NDVHUHO NORMAN MUNZHELE FANISA LYDIA LAMOLA THOMAS JOHN NKUNA
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 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 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 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 informationGUMA AND THREE OTHERS JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an application for rescission of a judgement given by. August In terms of the judgement the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J1281/98 In the matter between: SIZABANTU ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT and GUMA AND THREE OTHERS RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT SEADY A J [1]
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D933/13 ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Applicant and IMATU obo VIJAY NAIDOO Respondents Heard: 12 August 2014 Delivered: 13 August 2015
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE Applicant
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 486/16 In the matter between: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE Applicant
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, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JS 895/16 In the matter between: TILLY LABE Applicant And LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA BRAIN NAIR PATRICK HUNDERMARK FLAVIA ISOLA AYSHA ISMAIL
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 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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE Case Number: JR 596/09 In the matter between: SHELL SA ENERGY (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE Case Number: JR 596/09 In the matter between: SHELL SA ENERGY (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN. HOSPERSA OBO TS TSHAMBI Appellant DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, KWAZULU NATAL
IN THE OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Reportable Case no: DA 1/2015 In the matter between: HOSPERSA OBO TS TSHAMBI Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, KWAZULU NATAL Respondent Heard: 25 February 2016 Delivered:
More information