Interstate Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd v Venter NO and Others (JR1840/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 269 (20 August 2015)

Interstate Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd v Venter NO and Others (JR1840/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 269 (20 August 2015)

The arbitrator exceeded his powers by redefining the issue for determination after the parties had agreed that the lawfulness of the picket would be dispositive of the incentive payment dispute. By deciding the matter on whether the employees' conduct constituted a strike, the arbitrator acted outside the scope of the agreed terms of reference. The parties had implicitly accepted that 'strike' in clause 6 of the incentive scheme included picketing, and the arbitrator's unilateral redefinition undermined this agreement. Had the arbitrator determined the dispute as defined, he would likely have found the picket unlawful, which would have resolved the incentive payment issue in favour of the...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 269
Parties
Applicant: Interstate Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Venter, P M, N.O.; Respondent: South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council; Respondent: SATAWU obo Members
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2015
Case Number
JR1840/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and replaced with an order that the company's conduct did not constitute an unfair labour practice. SATAWU's referral to arbitration is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Myburgh, AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Incentive Scheme, Protected Strike, Arbitration Review, Picketing, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Incentive Scheme Protected Strike Arbitration Review Picketing Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interstate Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Venter, P M, N.O.

Respondent

South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council

Respondent

SATAWU obo Members

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the arbitrator exceed his powers by redefining the agreed issue for determination.
  2. 2 Was the company's conduct in reducing the incentive payment an unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Did the employees' conduct qualify as a strike as defined in section 213 of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator exceeded his powers by redefining the issue for determination after the parties had agreed that the lawfulness of the picket would be dispositive of the incentive payment dispute. By deciding the matter on whether the employees' conduct constituted a strike, the arbitrator acted outside the scope of the agreed terms of reference. The parties had implicitly accepted that 'strike' in clause 6 of the incentive scheme included picketing, and the arbitrator's unilateral redefinition undermined this agreement. Had the arbitrator determined the dispute as defined, he would likely have found the picket unlawful, which would have resolved the incentive payment issue in favour of the...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and replaced with an order that the company's conduct did not constitute an unfair labour practice. SATAWU's referral to arbitration is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is set aside on review.
  • The arbitration award is replaced with an order that the company's conduct did not constitute an unfair labour practice, and SATAWU's referral to arbitration is dismissed.