BIFAWU obo Members v Zurich Insurance Co SA (J175/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 18 (7 January 2014)

BIFAWU obo Members v Zurich Insurance Co SA (J175/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 18 (7 January 2014)

The court found that while the settlement agreement created rights to consultation beyond those required by Section 197 of the LRA, it would serve no practical purpose to make the agreement an order of court. The employees had already transferred to the third party service provider more than two years prior, and most had subsequently returned to the respondent. No consultation as agreed took place, and there was no evidence that employees transferred on terms less favourable than before. If employees were aggrieved by the terms of their transfer, they or the union could pursue remedies. The respondent's arguments regarding locus standi and lack of legal obligation to consult were...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 18
Parties
Applicant: BIFAWU obo Members; Respondent: Zurich Insurance Co. SA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 January 2014
Case Number
J175/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Wilken
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Consultation Obligation, Locus Standi, Costs in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Settlement Agreement Enforcement Consultation Obligation Locus Standi Costs in Labour Court

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BIFAWU obo Members

Applicant

Zurich Insurance Co. SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement concluded under the auspices of the CCMA should be made an order of court under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to consult the applicant regarding the Section 197 transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had locus standi to represent the transferring employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the settlement agreement created rights to consultation beyond those required by Section 197 of the LRA, it would serve no practical purpose to make the agreement an order of court. The employees had already transferred to the third party service provider more than two years prior, and most had subsequently returned to the respondent. No consultation as agreed took place, and there was no evidence that employees transferred on terms less favourable than before. If employees were aggrieved by the terms of their transfer, they or the union could pursue remedies. The respondent's arguments regarding locus standi and lack of legal obligation to consult were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.