Mangcu v City of Johannesburg (J1038/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 351; [2017] 10 BLLR 1055 (LC) (22 February 2017)

Mangcu v City of Johannesburg (J1038/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 351; [2017] 10 BLLR 1055 (LC) (22 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case under section 77(3) of the BCEA, as her founding affidavit did not contain the necessary averments concerning her contract of employment. The reduction of salary was a direct and natural consequence of the demotion imposed by the arbitration award, and demotion in labour law includes a reduction in rank and salary. The applicant's argument that the salary should remain unchanged despite demotion was illogical and unsupported by law. The salary adjustment was lawful and not in contravention of section 34 of the BCEA, as it followed from the arbitration award. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 351
Parties
Applicant: Phelisa Mangcu; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Case Number
J1038/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Declare Salary Reduction Unlawful Following Arbitration Award; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Demotion, Salary Deduction, Arbitration Award, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Contract of Employment
Labour Law Demotion Salary Deduction Arbitration Award Basic Conditions of Employment Act Contract of Employment

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phelisa Mangcu

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Declare Salary Reduction Unlawful Following Arbitration Award; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reduction of the applicant's salary following demotion is unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct contravenes section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant made out a case under section 77(3) of the BCEA for relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case under section 77(3) of the BCEA, as her founding affidavit did not contain the necessary averments concerning her contract of employment. The reduction of salary was a direct and natural consequence of the demotion imposed by the arbitration award, and demotion in labour law includes a reduction in rank and salary. The applicant's argument that the salary should remain unchanged despite demotion was illogical and unsupported by law. The salary adjustment was lawful and not in contravention of section 34 of the BCEA, as it followed from the arbitration award. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.