Ethekwini Municipality v IMATU and Others (D760/08) [2009] ZALC 233 (9 December 2009)

Ethekwini Municipality v IMATU and Others (D760/08) [2009] ZALC 233 (9 December 2009)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide sufficient reasons for his conclusion that the Fourth and Further Respondents were entitled to the Locomotion Allowance and that the Applicant committed an unfair labour practice. The arbitrator did not adequately address whether the respondents met the qualification criteria under the scheme, nor did he explain the basis for finding unfair conduct. This lack of reasoning constituted a reviewable irregularity, and the award could not stand. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a different commissioner.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 233
Parties
Applicant: Ethekwini Municipality; Respondent: IMATU; Respondent: Commissioner Jabulani Ngwane; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Majozi, Thambiran & 5 Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2009
Case Number
D760/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner.
Judges
Conradie AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Collective Agreement, Arbitration Review, Locomotion Allowance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Collective Agreement Arbitration Review Locomotion Allowance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ethekwini Municipality

Applicant

IMATU

Respondent

Commissioner Jabulani Ngwane

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Majozi, Thambiran & 5 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fourth and Further Respondents were entitled to a Locomotion Allowance under the collective agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant committed an unfair labour practice by denying access to the scheme to employees at the same level as those who received the allowance.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award contained sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide sufficient reasons for his conclusion that the Fourth and Further Respondents were entitled to the Locomotion Allowance and that the Applicant committed an unfair labour practice. The arbitrator did not adequately address whether the respondents met the qualification criteria under the scheme, nor did he explain the basis for finding unfair conduct. This lack of reasoning constituted a reviewable irregularity, and the award could not stand. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued under case number EMD 020807 and EMD 010836 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the Third Respondent for consideration by a Commissioner other than the Second Respondent.