Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06) [2007] ZALCCT 12 (15 February 2007)

Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06) [2007] ZALCCT 12 (15 February 2007)

The court found that the arbitrator erred by disregarding the definition of 'short time' and the provisions of clause 12.4 of the Main Agreement, which require only one day's notice and do not mandate extensive consultation. The consultation that occurred via correspondence was sufficient given the purpose and short...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZALCCT 12
Parties
Applicant: Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: C De Kock NO; Respondent: Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry (Western Cape Sub-Chamber)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2007
Case Number
C400/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Order Granting Reasons for Review
Outcome
The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Collective Consultation, Short Time, Main Agreement Interpretation, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Collective Consultation Short Time Main Agreement Interpretation Arbitration Review

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

C De Kock NO

Respondent

Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union

Respondent

National Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry (Western Cape Sub-Chamber)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Order Granting Reasons for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator correctly applied the consultation requirements for imposing short time under the Main Agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to rule on the January 2006 short time when no dispute was referred to the bargaining council.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator erred by disregarding the definition of 'short time' and the provisions of clause 12.4 of the Main Agreement, which require only one day's notice and do not mandate extensive consultation. The consultation that occurred via correspondence was sufficient given the purpose and short notice period of short time. Furthermore, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to rule on the January 2006 short time as no dispute had been referred to the bargaining council.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside.
  • No order is made regarding the January 2006 short time as the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.