HOSPERSA obo Naidoo and Others v MEC Department of Health KZN and Others (DA 8/23) [2024] ZALAC 69; (2025) 46 ILJ 933 (LAC); [2025] 5 BLLR 445 (LAC) (23 December 2024)

HOSPERSA obo Naidoo and Others v MEC Department of Health KZN and Others (DA 8/23) [2024] ZALAC 69; (2025) 46 ILJ 933 (LAC); [2025] 5 BLLR 445 (LAC) (23 December 2024)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application, which is fatal to the condonation application. The Court found that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the collective agreement and the ministerial directive, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALAC 69
Parties
Appellant: HOSPERSA obo MG Naidoo & Others; Respondent: MEC Department of Health KZN; Respondent: Department of Health; Respondent: PSCBC; Respondent: Commissioner N. Mkhize N.O.
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 December 2024
Case Number
DA 8/23
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Savage, Van Niekerk, Jolwana
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Condonation, Salary Upgrades, Public Service Act, Interpretation of Collective Agreements
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreements Condonation Salary Upgrades Public Service Act Interpretation of Collective Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOSPERSA obo MG Naidoo & Others

Appellant

MEC Department of Health KZN

Respondent

Department of Health

Respondent

PSCBC

Respondent

Commissioner N. Mkhize N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator correctly interpreted clause 3.6.3.2 of PSCBC Resolution 3 of 2009 as amended by Resolution 1 of 2012.
  2. 2 Whether employees appointed after 1 August 2012 to posts graded at salary levels 10 and 12 are entitled to salary upgrades without ministerial approval.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court correctly dismissed the condonation application for late filing of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application, which is fatal to the condonation application. The Court found that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the collective agreement and the ministerial directive, which required ministerial consultation and approval for salary upgrades in the corporate services environment for posts graded at levels 10 and 12 after 1 August 2012. The posts in question are transversal across government departments, necessitating regulatory oversight to ensure consistency and equitability. The directive did not conflict with the collective agreement but provided...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.