Kala and Others v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSSBC) and Others (P 163/12) [2014] ZALCPE 34 (27 November 2014)

Kala and Others v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSSBC) and Others (P 163/12) [2014] ZALCPE 34 (27 November 2014)

The court found that the arbitrator properly considered the principal issue, evaluated the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion that the change in the applicants' job titles did not constitute demotion. The applicants' status, duties, remuneration, and benefits remained unchanged, and the change was effected as part of a national standardization process with trade union involvement. The applicants failed to refute the respondent's evidence and did not demonstrate that they lost status to which they were entitled. Accordingly, the arbitrator's award was not susceptible to review, and no grounds existed for the court to interfere.

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 34
Parties
Applicant: Kala and 18 Others; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSSBC); Respondent: Kelvin Kayster N.O.; Respondent: Member of Executive Council Department of Roads & Transport
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2014
Case Number
P 163/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; late filing condoned; no costs order granted.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Demotion, Condonation of Late Filing, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Demotion Condonation of Late Filing Arbitration Review

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kala and 18 Others

Applicant

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSSBC)

Respondent

Kelvin Kayster N.O.

Respondent

Member of Executive Council Department of Roads & Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the change in the applicants' job title constituted an unfair labour practice in the form of demotion.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's award was susceptible to review on the grounds of unreasonableness and disregard of material evidence.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator properly considered the principal issue, evaluated the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion that the change in the applicants' job titles did not constitute demotion. The applicants' status, duties, remuneration, and benefits remained unchanged, and the change was effected as part of a national standardization process with trade union involvement. The applicants failed to refute the respondent's evidence and did not demonstrate that they lost status to which they were entitled. Accordingly, the arbitrator's award was not susceptible to review, and no grounds existed for the court to interfere.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; late filing condoned; no costs order granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the review application is condoned.
  • The application for review is dismissed.