Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14) [2014] ZALCPE 38; [2015] 4 BLLR 436 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1592 (LC) (5 December 2014)

Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14) [2014] ZALCPE 38; [2015] 4 BLLR 436 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1592 (LC) (5 December 2014)

The court held that the applicant was not a consulting party as envisaged in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the employer was required to consult only with trade unions in terms of collective agreements. The applicant's participation in the retrenchment process was passive and did not amount to consultation. Consequently, he lacked locus standi to bring the application under section 189A(13). The court further found that the matter was not res judicata, as the parties and relief sought differed from the prior proceedings involving Solidarity. The facilitation process was lawful under section 189A(4), which permits the appointment of a facilitator by agreement, regardless of...

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 38
Parties
Applicant: Mzimkulu Amos Ketse; Respondent: Telkom SA SOC Ltd; Respondent: Solidarity; Respondent: South African Communication Union; Respondent: Communication Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2014
Case Number
P 400/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. The applicant lacked locus standi and the termination of employment was lawful.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Collective Agreements, Consultation Rights, Locus Standi, Facilitation Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Collective Agreements Consultation Rights Locus Standi Facilitation Process

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzimkulu Amos Ketse

Applicant

Telkom SA SOC Ltd

Respondent

Solidarity

Respondent

South African Communication Union

Respondent

Communication Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was a consulting party entitled to bring an application under section 189A(13) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is res judicata due to prior proceedings involving Solidarity and the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of the applicant's employment was lawful under section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not a consulting party as envisaged in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the employer was required to consult only with trade unions in terms of collective agreements. The applicant's participation in the retrenchment process was passive and did not amount to consultation. Consequently, he lacked locus standi to bring the application under section 189A(13). The court further found that the matter was not res judicata, as the parties and relief sought differed from the prior proceedings involving Solidarity. The facilitation process was lawful under section 189A(4), which permits the appointment of a facilitator by agreement, regardless of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The applicant lacked locus standi and the termination of employment was lawful.

Orders

  • The point in limine that the applicant was not a consulting party and lacked locus standi to bring this application is upheld.
  • The point in limine that this matter is res judicata is dismissed.