Maile v FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd (JR1148/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 71 (2 April 2019)

Maile v FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd (JR1148/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 71 (2 April 2019)

The court found that although the Commissioner’s reasoning contained errors and irregularities, the ultimate outcome—dismissing Maile’s claim—fell within the band of reasonableness. The scarcity allowance was a discretionary benefit implemented to retain scarce skills and increase remuneration without raising cost to company. Maile’s remuneration was significantly higher than other trainers, even with the allowance included, and granting him the allowance would have further widened the gap, defeating the scheme’s purpose. The evidence did not support that Maile was unfairly excluded based on skills or category, and Foskor’s discretion was exercised on rational grounds. The Commissioner’s...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 71
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Maile; Respondent: FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Nelson Ledwaba N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2019
Case Number
JR1148/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Benefits, Employer Discretion, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation, Remuneration
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Benefits Employer Discretion Review of Arbitration Award Condonation Remuneration

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Maile

Applicant

FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Nelson Ledwaba N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner’s arbitration award dismissing Maile’s unfair labour practice claim was reviewable and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether Foskor exercised its discretion fairly in excluding Maile from the scarcity allowance.
  3. 3 Whether Maile established entitlement to the scarcity allowance as a benefit under section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the Commissioner’s reasoning contained errors and irregularities, the ultimate outcome—dismissing Maile’s claim—fell within the band of reasonableness. The scarcity allowance was a discretionary benefit implemented to retain scarce skills and increase remuneration without raising cost to company. Maile’s remuneration was significantly higher than other trainers, even with the allowance included, and granting him the allowance would have further widened the gap, defeating the scheme’s purpose. The evidence did not support that Maile was unfairly excluded based on skills or category, and Foskor’s discretion was exercised on rational grounds. The Commissioner’s...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the review application is condoned.
  • The applicant’s application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued by the third respondent is dismissed.