Breytenbach v National Director of Public Prosecutions (J1397/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 68 (18 July 2012)

Breytenbach v National Director of Public Prosecutions (J1397/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 68 (18 July 2012)

The court held that the applicant's suspension constituted an unfair labour practice as defined by the Labour Relations Act and that disputes regarding such suspensions must be referred to the CCMA or Bargaining Council for conciliation and arbitration. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a suspension, whether categorized as unlawful or unfair, where the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the CCMA and Bargaining Council. The applicant failed to demonstrate extraordinary or compelling urgent circumstances to justify a final declaration of unlawfulness of her suspension. The application to strike out portions of the applicant's affidavit was dismissed, as the...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 68
Parties
Applicant: Glynnis Breytenbach; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Case Number
J1397/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict to Set Aside Precautionary Suspension
Outcome
Application dismissed. No costs order made.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Audi Alteram Partem, Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Procedure, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Precautionary Suspension Audi Alteram Partem Unfair Labour Practice Disciplinary Procedure Jurisdiction of 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glynnis Breytenbach

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict to Set Aside Precautionary Suspension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's precautionary suspension was unlawful and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the audi alteram partem rule prior to suspension.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to grant a declaratory order in respect of suspension categorized as an unfair labour practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's suspension constituted an unfair labour practice as defined by the Labour Relations Act and that disputes regarding such suspensions must be referred to the CCMA or Bargaining Council for conciliation and arbitration. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a suspension, whether categorized as unlawful or unfair, where the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the CCMA and Bargaining Council. The applicant failed to demonstrate extraordinary or compelling urgent circumstances to justify a final declaration of unlawfulness of her suspension. The application to strike out portions of the applicant's affidavit was dismissed, as the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No costs order made.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No costs order is made.