City Council of Pretoria v Campanella NO and Another (J250/00) [2001] ZALC 96 (29 June 2001)
The court found that the applicant had voluntarily participated in the arbitration process and did not object to its conduct at the time. The dispute concerned an alleged unfair dismissal and an employment relationship, matters that fall under the Labour Court's natural jurisdiction. The argument that the award was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 96
- Parties
- Applicant: City Council of Pretoria; Respondent: J Campanella NO; Respondent: MISHAWU on behalf of D P Motstetsi
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J250/00
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court
- Outcome
- Application granted; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- E Revelas
- Legal Topics
- Arbitration Award Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Collective Agreement, Unfair Dismissal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
City Council of Pretoria
Applicant
J Campanella NO
Respondent
MISHAWU on behalf of D P Motstetsi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to make the arbitration award an order of court.
- 2 Whether the applicant was bound by the collective agreement under which the arbitration was conducted.
- 3 Whether sufficient particularity was provided in the founding affidavit for the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had voluntarily participated in the arbitration process and did not object to its conduct at the time. The dispute concerned an alleged unfair dismissal and an employment relationship, matters that fall under the Labour Court's natural jurisdiction. The argument that the award was a common law award and thus outside the court's jurisdiction was rejected. The point in limine regarding insufficient particularity in the founding affidavit was dismissed, as the allegations were standard and sufficient for the relief sought. The applicant had previously brought a review application but abandoned it, further supporting the respondent's position. Accordingly,...
Court Disposition
Application granted; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The arbitration award is made an order of court.
- The applicant is to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Sneller Verbatim/mc
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J250/00
2001-06-29
In the matter between
CITY COUNCIL OF PRETORIA Applicant
and
J CAMPANELLA NO First Respondent
MISHAWU ON BEHALF OF D P MOTSTETSI Second Respondent
________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS J:
This is an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, (âthe Actâ), in terms of which the second respondent, (MISHAWU) applies to have an arbitration award granted in favour of the second respondent, made an order of court.
The applicant,(âthe City Council of Pretoriaâ) or (âthe Councilâ) have previously launched an application for a review of the award but abandoned the application.
The application is opposed on the basis that the award is unlawful in that the City Council of Pretoria was not a party to the collective agreement in terms of which dismissal disputes between the parties are determined by way of arbitration under the auspices of IMSSA.
Therefore the collective agreement applicable did not apply to it. Consequently there was no written agreement in terms of which the arbitration took place.
Therefore the award constituted a common law award and the Labour Court, according to the applicant's argument, did not have the necessary jurisdiction to make the award an order of court.
There was also a point in limine taken that the application to have the award made an order of court did not contain sufficient particularity in support of the application in that the founding affidavit only makes mention of the fact that the applicant, the City Council of Pretoria, did not comply with the award. In my view, the point in limine has no merit and is dismissed. No further particularity is required in the applicantsâ affidavit. The allegations contained in the founding affidavit are sufficient to make out a proper case. The allegations contained therein appear in many applications for the same relief, in terms of which, this court daily grants orders.
Insofar as the common law argument is concerned, there is no merit in that argument, either. The arbitration was conducted by the first respondent and there was no objection to the arbitration process then. The applicant was a willing party to that process.
It is therefore a voluntary arbitration.
Furthermore the arbitration concerned an alleged unfair dismissal and an employment relationship. Therefore it should fall under the natural jurisdiction of this court.
The applicant brought an application for review which it deliberately chose not to persue.
In the circumstances I make the following order:
The award is made an order of court and the applicant (âthe City Council of Pretoriaâ) is to pay the second and third
respondent's costs in this matter. ________________ E. Revelas
Furthermore the arbitration concerned an alleged unfair dismissal and an employment relationship. Therefore it should fall under the natural jurisdiction of this court.
The applicant brought an application for review which it deliberately chose not to persue.
In the circumstances I make the following order:
The award is made an order of court and the applicant (âthe City Council of Pretoriaâ) is to pay the second and third
respondent's costs in this matter.
________________
E. Revelas