Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (J2239/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 578; [2016] 6 BLLR 595 (LC) (2 March 2016)

Broadcasting, Electronic, Media & Allied Workers Union and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (J2239/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 578; [2016] 6 BLLR 595 (LC) (2 March 2016)

The court found that the union failed to establish urgency, as it had long been aware of the SABC's intended disciplinary process and did not act promptly. On the merits, the court held that the process adopted by the SABC, although different from its usual procedure, was fair and satisfied the requirements of natural justice given the operational constraints and the large number of employees involved. The court further found that the union members had an alternative remedy available through the CCMA should they be dismissed, and that exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention were not present. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 578
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 to Interdict Disciplinary Process; Urgent Motion
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Code, Natural Justice, Urgent Interdict, Alternative Remedy, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Disciplinary Code Natural Justice 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BEMAWU & 35 Others

Applicant

SABC & 10 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Disciplinary Process; Urgent Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to interdict the disciplinary process is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary process adopted by the SABC, differing from its Disciplinary Code, is procedurally fair and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the union members have established a clear right to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the union failed to establish urgency, as it had long been aware of the SABC's intended disciplinary process and did not act promptly. On the merits, the court held that the process adopted by the SABC, although different from its usual procedure, was fair and satisfied the requirements of natural justice given the operational constraints and the large number of employees involved. The court further found that the union members had an alternative remedy available through the CCMA should they be dismissed, and that exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention were not present. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

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.