John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality v IMATU obo Others In re: IMATU obo Others v John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality (JS229/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 93 (1 June 2021)
The court held that the settlement agreement reached in the bargaining council only resolved the unfair labour practice dispute and did not extend to the contractual claim for specific performance. Relying on established authority, the judge found that employees retain contractual claims even after settling unfair...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 93
- Parties
- Applicant: John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality; Respondent: IMATU obo two others
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JS229/17
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Application to Dismiss Referral on Grounds of Compromise
- Outcome
- The interlocutory application to dismiss the referral is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the municipality.
- Judges
- GN Moshoana
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Labour Practice, Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Settlement Agreement
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality
Applicant
IMATU obo two others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Dismiss Referral on Grounds of Compromise
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the referral to court is compromised by the prior settlement of the unfair labour practice dispute.
- 2 Whether the contractual claim for specific performance survives the settlement of the unfair labour practice claim.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the municipality.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the settlement agreement reached in the bargaining council only resolved the unfair labour practice dispute and did not extend to the contractual claim for specific performance. Relying on established authority, the judge found that employees retain contractual claims even after settling unfair labour practice disputes. The municipality's preliminary objection was therefore dismissed. Regarding costs, the court applied the general principle that costs follow the result and ordered the municipality to pay the costs of the interlocutory application, finding no basis for punitive costs.
Court Disposition
The interlocutory application to dismiss the referral is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the municipality.
Orders
- The remaining preliminary point is dismissed.
- The Municipality is to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
In the Labour Court of South Africa, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
case no: JS229/17
In the matter between:
JOHN TAOLO GAETSEWE DISTRICT
MUNICIPALITY
Applicant
and
IMATU obo two others
Respondents
In re:
IMATU OBO TWO OTHERS
Applicants
MUNICIPALITY
Respondent
Heard: 28 May 2021 (via zoom)
Delivered: 01 June 2021 (This judgment was handed down electronically by emailing a copy to the parties. The 01st June 2021 is deemed the date of delivery of this judgment).
Summary: Interlocutory application to dismiss a referral on the basis that the claim is compromised. The settled dispute related to an unfair labour practice. The claim referred to Court relates to an alleged breach of contract, which is not settled. Held: [1] The interlocutory application is dismissed. Held: [2] The municipality is to pay the costs of this application.
JUDGMENT
MOSHOANA, J
Introduction
[1] IMATU on behalf of two of its members made a referral in terms of section 77 (3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act[1] (BCEA). In opposing the referral, John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality (Municipality) raised about four preliminary objections.
During argument, the three points were jettisoned. What remains is the question whether the referred matter is compromised or not? This judgment will only address that remaining point.
Background Facts
[2] Prior to 1 July 2014, the Municipality had in place a transport allowance in terms of which two of IMATU’s members qualified to be paid a transport allowance. With effect from 1 July 2014, the travel allowance was reduced significantly. IMATU referred a dispute to the bargaining council alleging an unfair labour practice on 18 August 2014. The said dispute was settled on 6 May 2015. On 07 April 2017, IMATU filed a statement of case in terms of rule 6 and launched a contractual claim seeking specific performance. IMATU contended that the unilateral amendment of the terms and conditions of employment was invalid and unlawful.
Evaluation
[3] A claim for unfair labour practice is one that is different from a breach of contract claim. In this matter, what was compromised was the dispute relating to an unfair labour practice. As confirmed in Archer v Public School Pinelands High School & others[2], after an unfair labour practice claim an employee retains a contractual claim. On the strength of this authority, the contractual
claim is available and has not been compromised by the settlement of the unfair labour practice dispute. Thus, the preliminary objection must fail.
[4] With regard to costs, the Labour Court sits in this matter as a civil Court and the principle of costs following the results applies. Having failed, the Municipality must carry the costs of this application. There is no basis in law to mulct the Municipality with punitive costs.
[5] In the results, I make the following order:
Order
1. The remaining preliminary point is dismissed.
2. The Municipality to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.
_______________________
GN Moshoana
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the IMATU: Mr J L Basson
Instructed by: Francois Du Plessis Attorneys, Pretoria.
For Municipality: Mr N Cloete of Neville Cloete Attorneys Inc, Kimberly.
[1] Act 75 of 1997.
[2] [2020] 41 ILJ 610 (LAC)