Coetzee and Others v MEC of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape and Others (C 751/2008) [2013] ZALCCT 12; (2013) 34 ILJ 2865 (LC) (20 March 2013)

Coetzee and Others v MEC of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape and Others (C 751/2008) [2013] ZALCCT 12; (2013) 34 ILJ 2865 (LC) (20 March 2013)

The court found that the design of the Labour Relations Act is inconsistent with the Prescription Act. The LRA sets out its own time periods for the referral of claims and provides for condonation, rather than relying on prescription. Applying the Prescription Act to all LRA claims would create inequalities between litigants who follow different procedural routes and would be unworkable where disputes move between tribunals and courts. The referral to the bargaining council and subsequent proceedings were part of the statutory dispute resolution process, and the Prescription Act does not apply to these claims. The point in limine raised by the first respondent regarding prescription was...

Citation
[2013] ZALCCT 12
Parties
Applicant: Prof A R Coetzee & 48 Others; Respondent: The Member of the Executive Council of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape; Respondent: The University of the Western Cape; Respondent: The University of Stellenbosch; Respondent: The National Minister of Health
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2013
Case Number
C 751/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Special Plea (point in Limine) on Prescription Prior to Quantum Determination
Outcome
Special plea (point in limine) on prescription dismissed. Costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Collective Agreement, Condonation, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Referral to Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Collective Agreement Condonation Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Referral to 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof A R Coetzee & 48 Others

Applicant

The Member of the Executive Council of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape

Respondent

The University of the Western Cape

Respondent

The University of Stellenbosch

Respondent

The National Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Special Plea (point in Limine) on Prescription Prior to Quantum Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 applies to claims brought under the Labour Relations Act (LRA).
  2. 2 Whether the referral of the dispute to the bargaining council interrupted prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the design of the LRA is inconsistent with the Prescription Act regarding time periods and condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the design of the Labour Relations Act is inconsistent with the Prescription Act. The LRA sets out its own time periods for the referral of claims and provides for condonation, rather than relying on prescription. Applying the Prescription Act to all LRA claims would create inequalities between litigants who follow different procedural routes and would be unworkable where disputes move between tribunals and courts. The referral to the bargaining council and subsequent proceedings were part of the statutory dispute resolution process, and the Prescription Act does not apply to these claims. The point in limine raised by the first respondent regarding prescription was...

Court Disposition

Special plea (point in limine) on prescription dismissed. Costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The point in limine is dismissed.
  • The First respondent is to pay the costs of this application.