FAWU and Others v Clover SA Ltd (D1321/99) [2000] ZALC 93 (11 September 2000)

FAWU and Others v Clover SA Ltd (D1321/99) [2000] ZALC 93 (11 September 2000)

The court held that although the second respondent relied on the Rustenburg Platinum Mines decision, which required employee signatures on the referral form, he was not made aware of the Moolman Brothers case, which clarified that a trade union may refer a dispute on behalf of its members. The omission of this authority did not constitute a reviewable irregularity, as the decision was made on the information properly before the arbitrator. The resulting inequity, namely the applicants being barred from pursuing their dispute, was not sufficient grounds for the court to set aside the ruling. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 93
Parties
Applicant: FAWU & Others; Respondent: Clover SA Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2000
Case Number
D1321/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Condonation, Referral of Dispute, Trade Union Representation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Referral of Dispute Trade Union Representation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAWU & Others

Applicant

Clover SA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral of a dispute to the CCMA requires the signatures of the employees on the referral form.
  2. 2 Whether a trade union may refer a dispute on behalf of its members under section 191 of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to consider relevant case law renders the arbitration award reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the second respondent relied on the Rustenburg Platinum Mines decision, which required employee signatures on the referral form, he was not made aware of the Moolman Brothers case, which clarified that a trade union may refer a dispute on behalf of its members. The omission of this authority did not constitute a reviewable irregularity, as the decision was made on the information properly before the arbitrator. The resulting inequity, namely the applicants being barred from pursuing their dispute, was not sufficient grounds for the court to set aside the ruling. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.