Hlehlethe v CEPWAWU (J2455/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 215 (5 June 2017)

Hlehlethe v CEPWAWU (J2455/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 215 (5 June 2017)

The court found that the respondent's conduct in agreeing to uplift the applicant's suspension and then immediately suspending him again was peculiar but not unlawful. The order of 3 November 2016 did not prohibit future suspensions, nor did it constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to suspend the applicant. The suspension was justified under the union's disciplinary code, which applies to the applicant as a regional secretary. The grounds for the suspension on 4 November 2016 included new allegations of ongoing misconduct and disruption, which were distinct from those considered in the previous order. The applicant was not entitled to a hearing prior to precautionary suspension,...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 215
Parties
Applicant: Matsemela Klaas Hlehlethe; Respondent: CEPWAWU
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2017
Case Number
J2455/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Uplift Suspension and for Contempt Order
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Procedure, Waiver of Rights
Labour Law Precautionary Suspension Unfair Labour Practice Disciplinary Procedure Waiver of Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matsemela Klaas Hlehlethe

Applicant

CEPWAWU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Uplift Suspension and for Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's suspension of the applicant on 4 November 2016 was unlawful or in contempt of the court order of 3 November 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to a hearing prior to suspension.
  3. 3 Whether the suspension was properly authorised under the union's constitution and disciplinary code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's conduct in agreeing to uplift the applicant's suspension and then immediately suspending him again was peculiar but not unlawful. The order of 3 November 2016 did not prohibit future suspensions, nor did it constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to suspend the applicant. The suspension was justified under the union's disciplinary code, which applies to the applicant as a regional secretary. The grounds for the suspension on 4 November 2016 included new allegations of ongoing misconduct and disruption, which were distinct from those considered in the previous order. The applicant was not entitled to a hearing prior to precautionary suspension,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application filed on 11 November 2016 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.