IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG)
|
|
- Benjamin Kelley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION & ARBITRATION Second Respondent DEIDRE NADIA SMITH Third Respondent JUDGMENT Freund A.J.: INTRODUCTION: 1. This is an unopposed application for an order reviewing and setting aside a certificate of outcome in respect of an alleged unfair dismissal dispute issued by a Commissioner appointed by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ( the CCMA ). 2. The facts as disclosed in the Founding Affidavit are straightforward. The Third Respondent worked as an estate agent at the Applicant s Krugersdorp office. The relationship between the parties was terminated by the Applicant. The Third Respondent thereafter referred a dispute to the CCMA alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Applicant. On 29 August 2005 a conciliation meeting was convened at the offices of the CCMA
2 2 in respect of this referral. 3. The Applicant s attorney, Mr. Berkowitz, attended the conciliation meeting intending to raise an objection to the CCMA s jurisdiction to deal with the Third Respondent s alleged unfair dismissal claim. The argument he proposed to advance on behalf of the Applicant was that the Third Respondent had not been an employee of the Applicant but had been an independent contractor. Mr. Berkowitz had prepared a Notice of Motion giving notice that the Applicant intended to apply for an order declaring that the CCMA did not have jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal dispute and had prepared a supporting written statement. He sought leave to hand the application to the First Respondent ( the Commissioner ) but she refused to accept receipt thereof and refused to consider the application. Mr. Berkowitz submitted to her that, before she could conciliate the dispute, she first had to investigate whether she had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. She responded by saying that, if the dispute could not be resolved, she would issue a certificate of outcome. Mr. Berkowitz suggested that before she issued the certificate, she should perhaps seek guidance from a senior commissioner. She disregarded this, prepared the relevant certificate and distributed copies thereof. Mr. Berkowitz requested her to place a copy of the jurisdiction application in the CCMA file, which she declined to do.
3 3 4. It is the Applicant s case that the Commissioner was obliged to investigate whether the CCMA had the requisite jurisdiction and that her decision to issue the certificate of outcome without first investigating this issue constitutes a reviewable irregularity. 5. I agree that the Commissioner s failure to investigate the jurisdictional issue is a reviewable irregularity. I say this for the reasons which follow. 6. Rule 14 of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings before the CCMA (as published in GN R1448 in GG of 10 October 2003 and as amended) ( the CCMA rules ) provides as follows: 14. How to determine whether a Commissioner may conciliate a dispute If it appears during conciliation proceedings that a jurisdictional issue has not been determined, the Commissioner must require the referring party to prove that the Commission has the jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute through conciliation. 7. This Rule is a rule made by the Governing Body of the CCMA under its powers in terms of Section 115 (6), read with Sections 115(2)(cA) and 115 (2A) of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 ( the LRA ). The Rule constitutes a form of delegated legislation which bound the Commissioner. 8. It is self evident, on the facts outlined above, that during relevant conciliation proceedings it must have become apparent to the Commissioner that a jurisdictional issue existed which had not been determined. In those circumstances the Commissioner was bound in terms of the Rule to require the referring party, in this case the Third
4 4 Respondent, to prove that the Commission had the jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute through conciliation. The Commissioner failed to do so. By so doing she acted in breach of a law circumscribing her powers and her decision to issue the certificate of outcome without investigating the jurisdictional issue raised is therefore reviewable in terms of the constitutional principal of legality. (See Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others vs Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others, 1999(1) SA 374 (CC), at paragraphs [58] and [59]; President of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs South African Rugby Football Union and Others 2000(1) SA 1 (CC), at paragraph [148].); Gerber v Member of the Executive Council for Provincial Government, Development and Another 2003(2) SA 346 (SCA) at paragraph [35]; Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala Msimang and Another N.N.O; New Clicks South African (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health and Another 2005(3) SA 238 (A) at paragraph[41]). 9. The Commissioner s failure to enquire into the jurisdictional issue is a sufficient basis to determine the outcome of this application. However, I wish to add a few further comments. 10. First, it appears to me that Rule 14 of the Rules of the CCMA alters what might otherwise have been the applicable legal position. It puts beyond doubt the obligation (and not merely the right) of a commissioner to determine whether the CCMA has jurisdiction if it
5 5 becomes apparent that a jurisdictional issue has not been determined. 11. Second, I do not know why the Commissioner refused to investigate the jurisdictional issue raised by the Applicant for determination. None of the Respondents have filed answering affidavits and the record filed in this matter comprises no more than the Third Respondent s referral form and the certificate of outcome issued by the Commissioner. It may be, however, that the Commissioner took the view that, if a respondent wanted to raise the point that the referring party had not been its employee, this was not a matter to be considered at the conciliation stage and that it was a matter only to be considered by the arbitrating commissioner in due course. Such an approach would be consistent with certain decisions of this Court, e.g. Dempster vs Kahn and Others (1998) 19 ILJ 147 (LC); BHT Water Treatment (a division of Afchem (Pty) Ltd incorporating PWTSA) vs CCMA and Others (2002) 23 ILJ 141 (LC); AVBOB Mutual Assurances Society vs Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bloemfontein and Others (2003) 24 ILJ 535 (LC). There are two answers to this. First, even if the Commissioner believed that her jurisdiction to conciliate did not turn on whether or not the referring party was in truth an employee, she was nevertheless bound in terms of Rule 14 of the CCMA s Rules to inquire into the correctness of that very proposition. Second, there is weighty authority which contradicts the cases referred to above and
6 6 which is to the effect that a conciliating commissioner has no jurisdiction even to conciliate unless the referring party is, in fact, an employee. See e.g. Tier Hoek vs CCMA (1999) 1 BLLR 63 (LC); Virgin Active (Pty) Ltd vs Mathole N.O. and Others (2002) 23 ILJ 984 (LC); Sapekoe Tea Estates vs Commissioner Maake and Others (2002) 23 ILJ 1603 (LC); Flexware (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (1998) 19 ILJ In my view it is clear from these cases and from Section 191(1)(a) of the Act (which permits a dismissed employee to refer an unfair dismissal dispute for conciliation) that the referring party must, in truth, be an employee and therefore that no jurisdiction exists to conciliate the dispute if the referring party is not an employee. 12. Third, this is one of several cases which has come before me in which a party has sought an order reviewing and setting aside a certificate of outcome issued by a CCMA commissioner. Indeed, the very next case on my roll was such a case. I am not persuaded that there was any need to bring these applications, even if they were legally sound. These applications rest on what I believe to be a misconception as to the legal effect of a certificate of outcome. In particular, parties appear to believe that, if they can prevent a certificate of outcome from being issued, or review and set aside a certificate of outcome which has been issued, this will ipso facto put an end to any possible arbitration of the underlying unfair dismissal dispute. In my view, this is not correct.
7 7 13. Section 191 of the LRA regulates disputes about unfair dismissals. Section 191(1)(a) permits a dismissed employee to refer a dispute about the fairness of his or her dismissal to a bargaining council or to the CCMA. Section 191(4) provides that the bargaining council or the CCMA must attempt to resolve such dispute through conciliation. That is the context in which Section 191(5)(a) provides (in the relevant parts) as follows: If a council or a commissioner has certified that the dispute remains unresolved, or if 30 days have expired since the council or the Commission received the referral and the dispute remains unresolved a) the council or the Commission must arbitrate the dispute at the request of the employee if (i) (my emphasis) (Sub subsections (1) to (iv) of Section 191(5)(a) are presently immaterial; their effect is that arbitration rather than adjudication by the Labour Court must take place in respect of an unfair dismissal dispute if the employee has alleged certain facts in respect of the reason for the dismissal.) 14. The words I have emphasised above, make it quite clear, in my view, that even if a certificate of outcome has not been issued, arbitration remains mandatory if 30 days have expired since the council or the Commission received the referral and if the employee requires this. (See, in this regard, De Vries v Lionel Murray Schwormstedt & Louw
8 8 (2001) 22 ILJ 1150 (LC)). 15. In my view, the fact that a conciliating commissioner has declined to issue a certificate of outcome because he or she is of the view that the CCMA lacks jurisdiction on the basis that the referring party was not an employee or was not dismissed is a matter of no consequence to the commissioner appointed to arbitrate the dispute, who is entitled to consider the same jurisdictional question afresh. See in this regard SA Broadcasting Corporation vs Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2003) 24 ILJ 211 (LC) at paragraphs [19] and [20]; Etschmaier vs Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (1991) 20 ILG 144 (LC) at paragraphs [40] to [48]; Benicon Earthworks & Mining Services (Edms) Bpk vs Jacobs N.O. and Others (1994) 15 ILJ 801 (LAC) at 803H to 804H; Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd v Mangele and Others (2005) 20 ILJ 749 (LAC) at paragraphs [6] to [7]. 16. Frequently disputes as to whether or not the referring party was, in truth, an employee (as defined in Section 213 of the LRA) or whether the employee was, in truth, dismissed (as contemplated in Section 189 of the LRA) turn on disputed facts. Sometimes they turn also on principles of law beyond the knowledge of unrepresented litigants. In my view disputes over such issues are best ventilated and determined
9 9 at the arbitration phase. The conciliation phase was, in my view, never intended by the lawgiver to be a phase in which complex factual and legal issues were to be determined. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, I accept that if a respondent to a referral insists on raising a jurisdictional challenge based on the contention that the referring party was either not an employee or was not dismissed, Rule 14 of the CCMA Rules requires the conciliating commissioner to investigate the merits of this challenge. If the challenge is upheld, a certificate of outcome will not be issued. As explained above, very little turns on this. 17. If, as I believe to be the case, it is correct that the views taken by the conciliating commissioner on these jurisdictional questions do not bind the commissioner appointed to arbitrate, it appears to me that little purpose is served (save, perhaps, in unusual factual settings) in bringing before this Court case after case in which parties seek to review and set aside decisions made by conciliating commissioners in respect of whether or not the CCMA has jurisdiction. 18. In saying this I have not lost sight of the views expressed by the Labour Appeal Court in Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd vs Epstein N.O. and Others (2000) 21 ILJ 2382 (LAC). That case concerned an appeal against the dismissal of a review application aimed at reviewing and setting aside an arbitration award. The appeal failed. The case turned on whether or not the arbitrating commissioner had jurisdiction,in circumstances where a certificate of outcome had been issued but where the employee had failed to refer the matter to the CCMA for conciliation within the required 30 day period and had not applied for
10 10 condonation. The Court held as follows (per Zondo J.P. at paragraph [12]): In my view the language employed by the legislature in s 191 is such that, where a dispute about the fairness of a dismissal has been referred to the CCMA or a council for conciliation, and the council or commissioner has issued a certificate in terms of s 191(5) stating that such dispute remains unresolved or where a period of 30 days has lapsed since the council or the CCMA received the referral for conciliation and the dispute remains unresolved, the council or the CCMA, as the case may be, has jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. That the dispute may have been referred to the CCMA or council for conciliation outside the statutory period of 30 days and no application for condonation was made or one was made but no decision on it was made does not affect the jurisdiction to arbitrate as long as the certificate of outcome has not been set aside. It is the setting aside of the certificate of outcome that would render the CCMA or the council to be without jurisdiction to arbitrate. 19. The facts in the Fidelity Guards matter are entirely distinguishable from the present case and from many of the jurisdictional reviews which come before this Court in respect of certificates of outcome. In the
11 11 Fidelity Guards matter the jurisdictional issue pertained to the late referral of the dispute to the CCMA. That is a matter which may be condoned in terms of Section 191(2) of the LRA. However, if such condonation is not granted the CCMA lacks jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute. 20. It is within this different context that Zondo J.P. discussed (in paragraphs [15] to [20] of the Fidelity Guards judgment) the question as to at what stage a party who objects on one or other ground to the processing of the dispute should institute review proceedings. The learned Judge President held that this should be done within a reasonable time (at Paragraph [15]) but doubted that a hard and fast rule could be made as to whether a party should approach the Court about jurisdictional objections before or after the completion of the processes before the CCMA. It is my view that, in a case involving a dispute as to whether a person was or was not an employee of the respondent party, review proceedings would generally be premature until after the arbitrating commissioner has had an opportunity of hearing evidence and argument in respect of this issue and of coming to a view thereon. See the SABC case (supra) at paragraph [35]. CONCLUSION:
12 Although, in my view, little turns on the validity of the certificate of outcome in this case, I am nonetheless persuaded that the Applicant has shown a reviewable irregularity which vitiates the Commissioner s decision to issue it. 22. As regards the question of costs, the Applicant asks for an order on the scale as between attorney and own client against the First and/or the Second Respondents. It seeks this essentially on the basis of the Second Respondent s refusal to consider the jurisdictional issue raised, notwithstanding being referred to the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCMA Rules. Whilst I accept that the Second Respondent erred in this regard, I am not persuaded that she necessarily acted in bad faith. As indicated above, it may be that she believed that the point sought to be taken by the Applicant ought more appropriately to have been taken at the arbitration stage. Indeed, having regard to the fact that, in my view, so little turns on the reviewability or otherwise of the certificate of outcome; to the fact that this application was not opposed; and to the general reluctance of a Court to make a costs order against a public officer or public body which acts in good faith (see Herbstein and Van Winsen The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa Fourth Edition at paragraphs 723 to 725), I am not persuaded that the Applicant is entitled to a costs order at all. 23. I therefore make the following order: The certificate of outcome issued by Commissioner Nomasana Mbhele dated 29 August 2005 under case number: GAJB 20341/05 is reviewed and set aside. FREUND, A.J. APPEARANCES: FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. C. Berkowitz of Berkowitz Attorneys DATE OF HEARING: 2 May 2006 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 26 May 2006
IN 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 informationHELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO J6145/00 SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO J6145/00 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Applicant and 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 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 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 informationTHE 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Reportable Case No: JR1944/12 DAVID CHAUKE Applicant and SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL THE MINISTER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER F J
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 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: C 700 / 16 In the matter between: REVON ADAMS Applicant and NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE ROAD FRIEGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
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 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 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 informationIn the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 868/13 In the matter between: PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPLICANT and COMMISSION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD 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 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 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 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 informationSTALLION SECURITY (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the order which this Court
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: J2023/08 In the matter between: S A TSOTETSI APPLICANT AND STALLION SECURITY (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Molahlehi J Introduction
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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, AT DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D477/11 In the matter between:- HOSPERSA First Applicant E. JOB Second Applicant and CHITANE SOZA
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT CORPORATION (SOC) LTD ELEANOR HAMBIDGE N.O. (AS ARBITRATOR)
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 745 / 16 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (SOC) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR2899/2012 In the matter between: SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS Applicant and SEHUNANE M, N.O. First Respondent THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More 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 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 HELD AT JOHANNESBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 628/07 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER
More 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 (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CEMENTATION MINING Applicant
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JR 1644/06 In the matter between: CEMENTATION MINING Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1 ST Respondent
More 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 informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LIMITED. Neutral citation: Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited [2017] ZACC 6
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 76/16 MARIA JANE MOGAILA Applicant and COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty)
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 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 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1906/2016 In the matter between ELIZABETH LEE MING Applicant and MMI GROUP LTD KAREN DE VILLIERS N.O. First Respondent
More 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 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 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 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 informationHELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: C77/2006. SPANJAARD LIMITED Applicant JUDGMENT. 2. The applicant has raised the following grounds for leave to appeal:
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: C77/2006 In the matter between: SPANJAARD LIMITED Applicant and RETIEF OLIVIER NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY DAPHNE
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 286/15 In the matter between: DIESEL SUPPLY AND LOGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant and R SKHOSANA COMMISSION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO. D460/08 In the matter between: SHAUN SAMSON Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent ALMEIRO
More 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 informationCASE NO. J837/98 R E A S O N S APPLICATION TO REFER THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF
REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. J837/98 In the matter between : S H ZEELIE APPLICANT and PRICE FORBES [NORTHERN PROVINCE][1] RESPONDENT R E A S O N S APPLICATION
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 informationANGLO AMERICAN CORPORATION OF SA LIMITED
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO J2027/00 In the matter between: ANGLO AMERICAN CORPORATION OF SA LIMITED Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION TUCKER RAYMOND
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 informationJUDGMENT. [2] On 11 August 2005, a rule nisi was granted in the following terms on an unopposed basis:
00IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J 1507/05 In the matter between: MAKHADO MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) AS RABAKALI and 669
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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SIBAHLE CYPRIAN NDABA. MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION Respondent
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable CASE NO: JR1384/09 In the matter between: SIBAHLE CYPRIAN NDABA Applicant and COMMISSSION FOR CONCILIATION
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: J3020/12 In the matter between: ZONDO N AND OTHERS Applicant And ST MARTINS SCHOOL Respondent Heard
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2826/11 In the matter between: CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY Applicant And S KHOLOANE First Respondent MARINA TERBLANCHE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, 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. 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 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 informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicant in this matter seeks an order to have the arbitration award issued
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: J578/08 In the matter between: JONATHAN HOWELL APPLICANT AND AUTOHAUS GOBEL NORTHCLIFF (PTY) PLT t/a PEUGET NORTHCLIFF RESPONDENT
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 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 information1 of /01/31 02:43 PM
1 of 12 2012/01/31 02:43 PM Division: Date: 28/03/2008 Case No: Before: Discovery Health Limited v CCMA & others [2008] 7 BLLR 633 (LC) Labour Court, Johannesburg JR2877/06 A van Niekerk, Acting Judge
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: Reportable Case no: JR 28 / 2011 BAUR RESEARCH CC Applicant and COMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
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 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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Not of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 202/10 In the matter between: K J LISANYANE Applicant and C J
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
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 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 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no. JR1005/13. SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) obo SD MOLLO & PE NAILE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no. JR1005/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) obo SD MOLLO & PE NAILE Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
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 informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT RAMANATHAN KUTHALAM PARAMASIVAN OCCUPATIO BUSINESS SERVICES (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 1643 / 15 In the matter between: RAMANATHAN KUTHALAM PARAMASIVAN Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More information1. This matter came before me as an application in terms of section 165 of the Labour
166336IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN CASE NUMBER: C146/97 In the matter between: UNICAB TAXIS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and ANDRIES KAMMIES RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FABER AJ 1. This matter
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 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 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P 423/12 In the matter between: NKOSINDINI MELAPI Applicant andand THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SATINSKY 128 (PTY) LTD t/a JUST GROUP AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 1479 / 2012 In the matter between: SATINSKY 128 (PTY) LTD t/a JUST GROUP AFRICA Applicant and DISPUTE
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 information[1] This is an application for condonation for the late delivery of an application for
REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO D1868/2001 In the matter between: P MOELLER & COMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant and AREND LEVENDAL First Respondent THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable SWISSPORT SA (PTY) LTD NATIONAL TRANSPORT MOVEMENT ( NTM )
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR664/15 In the matter between: SWISSPORT SA (PTY) LTD Applicant and SUANE RAYMOND SEANEGO NKULULEKO ZULU NATIONAL TRANSPORT MOVEMENT
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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN In the matter between: REPORTABLE CASE NUMBER: C662/07 ELSTON, INGRID Applicant and McEWAN NO, GAIL SHELL SA ENERGY (PTY) LTD NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case Number: C160/2006 Reportable MNIKELWA NXELE Applicant And THE CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CORPORATE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
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 information