Majoe v CCMA (JR1381/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 3 (20 November 2002)

Majoe v CCMA (JR1381/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 3 (20 November 2002)

The court held that Mr Majoe was not entitled to rely on item 2(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act because his application was for appointment, not promotion, and the provision only covers unfair conduct relating to promotion of an existing employee. At the time of his application, Mr Majoe was employed by the Western Cape Education Department, not the Free State Education Department, and thus no employment relationship existed with the respondent regarding the advertised post. The arbitrator correctly found that Mr Majoe did not meet the minimum experience requirement and that the procedures for appointment were followed. The application for review was dismissed as the arbitrator had no...

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 3
Parties
Applicant: T Majoe; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council of the Free State
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2002
Case Number
JR1381/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Employment of Educators Act, Education Labour Relations Council Resolution
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Employment of Educators Act Education Labour Relations Council Resolution

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T Majoe

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council of the Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to consider the dispute regarding Mr Majoe's non-appointment.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Majoe could rely on item 2(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act for his complaint.
  3. 3 Whether the application constituted a promotion or an appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr Majoe was not entitled to rely on item 2(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act because his application was for appointment, not promotion, and the provision only covers unfair conduct relating to promotion of an existing employee. At the time of his application, Mr Majoe was employed by the Western Cape Education Department, not the Free State Education Department, and thus no employment relationship existed with the respondent regarding the advertised post. The arbitrator correctly found that Mr Majoe did not meet the minimum experience requirement and that the procedures for appointment were followed. The application for review was dismissed as the arbitrator had no...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.