Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v NUM obo Coetzee and Others (C727/16) [2017] ZALCCT 56; [2018] 2 BLLR 176 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 828 (LC) (14 November 2017)

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v NUM obo Coetzee and Others (C727/16) [2017] ZALCCT 56; [2018] 2 BLLR 176 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 828 (LC) (14 November 2017)

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA. The union's referral and pleadings established the dispute as one concerning promotion and entitlement to higher grades and remuneration. However, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 56
Parties
Applicant: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Respondent: NUM obo N Coetzee & 4 Others; Respondent: C M Bennett N.O.; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Case Number
C727/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Review application succeeds on the merits; arbitration award set aside and replaced with a finding that Eskom did not commit an unfair labour practice.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion, Grading Disputes, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Grading Disputes Jurisdiction of Ccma Review of Arbitration Award

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Applicant

NUM obo N Coetzee & 4 Others

Respondent

C M Bennett N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the CCMA have jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA?
  2. 2 Was the arbitrator's award reasonable and rationally connected to the evidence presented?
  3. 3 Did Eskom commit an unfair labour practice by failing to upgrade the employees' grades?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA. The union's referral and pleadings established the dispute as one concerning promotion and entitlement to higher grades and remuneration. However, the arbitrator's award was unreasonable and disconnected from the evidence. The arbitrator failed to consider that the ECG only made recommendations and did not have authority to upgrade employees, ignored the requirements of the migration principles, and overlooked the absence of actual job evaluations supporting the upgrades. The arbitrator also did not properly distinguish...

Court Disposition

Review application succeeds on the merits; arbitration award set aside and replaced with a finding that Eskom did not commit an unfair labour practice.

Orders

  • The late filing of the review application and answering affidavit is condoned.
  • The arbitration award issued by Commissioner CM Bennett under case number WECT 15971 – 2015 on 6 August 2016 is reviewed and set aside.