Kapari and Another v Office of the Chief Justice and Another (J 539/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 268 (29 June 2020)
The court found that the applicants, who have been employed as Judges' secretaries on successive fixed term contracts, have a legitimate grievance regarding their employment security. The respondents failed to address this grievance adequately, and the applicants' attempts to resolve the matter through prescribed channels were met with silence. The principle of subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on section 23(1) of the Constitution where the Labour Relations Act provides a remedy, and the applicants are not excluded from the LRA. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to grant final relief where arbitration is required, but it may grant interim relief to preserve the applicants'...
- Citation
- [2020] ZALCJHB 268
- Parties
- Applicant: Boitumelo Gaopalelewe Valerie January (Kapari); Applicant: The applicants listed in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion; Respondent: Office of the Chief Justice; Respondent: Memme Sejosengwe N.O.
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 June 2020
- Case Number
- J 539/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Prior to Expiry of Fixed Term Contracts
- Outcome
- Interim relief granted; applicants to remain employed pending grievance resolution; respondents interdicted from filling positions; costs awarded against first respondent.
- Judges
- Van Niekerk
- Legal Topics
- Fixed Term Contracts, Unfair Labour Practice, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Subsidiarity Principle, Interim Interdict
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Boitumelo Gaopalelewe Valerie January (Kapari)
Applicant
The applicants listed in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion
Applicant
Office of the Chief Justice
Respondent
Memme Sejosengwe N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Prior to Expiry of Fixed Term Contracts
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to remain employed pending the outcome of their grievance.
- 2 Whether the respondents committed an unfair labour practice by advertising the applicants' positions.
- 3 Whether the applicants can rely directly on section 23(1) of the Constitution for relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, who have been employed as Judges' secretaries on successive fixed term contracts, have a legitimate grievance regarding their employment security. The respondents failed to address this grievance adequately, and the applicants' attempts to resolve the matter through prescribed channels were met with silence. The principle of subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on section 23(1) of the Constitution where the Labour Relations Act provides a remedy, and the applicants are not excluded from the LRA. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to grant final relief where arbitration is required, but it may grant interim relief to preserve the applicants'...
Court Disposition
Interim relief granted; applicants to remain employed pending grievance resolution; respondents interdicted from filling positions; costs awarded against first respondent.
Orders
- Pending the final outcome in a dispute resolution agency with jurisdiction of the grievance lodged by the applicants on 26 March 2020, the applicants are to remain in the employ of the first respondent on the same substantive terms and conditions of employment.
- The respondents are interdicted and restrained from interviewing and/or placing any candidates into any of the positions advertised by the first respondent on 22 May 2020 and which are currently occupied by any of the applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment