Ethekwini Municipality v IMATU and Others (D760/08) [2009] ZALCD 34 (9 December 2009)

Ethekwini Municipality v IMATU and Others (D760/08) [2009] ZALCD 34 (9 December 2009)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision and did not properly address whether the Fourth and Further Respondents met the criteria for qualification under the Locomotion Scheme. The arbitrator's reliance on legitimate expectation was misplaced, and the absence of clear reasoning constituted a reviewable irregularity. The award was set aside and the matter referred back for fresh consideration by a different commissioner.

Citation
[2009] ZALCD 34
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 Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2009
Case Number
D760/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter referred back for fresh arbitration.
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 on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to a Locomotion Allowance in accordance with the re-imbursive motor vehicle scheme.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent committed an unfair labour practice by denying the applicants access to the scheme which other employees at the same level had access to.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award contained sufficient reasoning to support its conclusions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision and did not properly address whether the Fourth and Further Respondents met the criteria for qualification under the Locomotion Scheme. The arbitrator's reliance on legitimate expectation was misplaced, and the absence of clear reasoning constituted a reviewable irregularity. The award was set aside and the matter referred back for fresh consideration by a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter referred back for fresh arbitration.

Orders

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