BEMAWU and Others v SABC and Others (J2239/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 74 (2 March 2016)

BEMAWU and Others v SABC and Others (J2239/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 74 (2 March 2016)

The court found that the urgency claimed by the union was self-created, as they had been aware of the SABC's intended disciplinary process for several months and failed to act promptly. The process adopted by the SABC, although different from the usual procedure, was necessitated by the scale of alleged misconduct and operational requirements. The process provided for written allegations, written representations, and an independent chairperson, which satisfied the requirements of natural justice and the Labour Relations Act. The Disciplinary Code's recommended procedure was not mandatory, and the process adopted constituted a formal hearing in the circumstances. The union failed to...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 74
Parties
Applicant: BEMAWU & 35 Others; Respondent: SABC & 10 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2016
Case Number
J2239/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Against Disciplinary Process
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Code, Audi Alteram Partem, Urgent Interdict, Alternative Remedy, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Code Audi Alteram Partem Urgent Interdict Alternative Remedy Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BEMAWU & 35 Others

Applicant

SABC & 10 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Against Disciplinary Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary process adopted by SABC is unfair and contrary to the Disciplinary Code forming part of employees' contracts.
  3. 3 Whether the union has established a clear right to interdict the disciplinary process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency claimed by the union was self-created, as they had been aware of the SABC's intended disciplinary process for several months and failed to act promptly. The process adopted by the SABC, although different from the usual procedure, was necessitated by the scale of alleged misconduct and operational requirements. The process provided for written allegations, written representations, and an independent chairperson, which satisfied the requirements of natural justice and the Labour Relations Act. The Disciplinary Code's recommended procedure was not mandatory, and the process adopted constituted a formal hearing in the circumstances. The union failed to...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • No order as to costs.