Mashele and Others v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR648/04) [2007] ZALCJHB 36 (10 January 2007)

Mashele and Others v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR648/04) [2007] ZALCJHB 36 (10 January 2007)

The court found that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the relevant clauses of Resolution 1 of 2002. The applicants were not reappointed nor did they accept the acting appointments in writing as required by the regulations. The arbitrator's reasoning was rational and reasonable, and there was no duty on the third respondent to reappoint the applicants. The applicants may have had an expectation to be reappointed, but they did not establish a right to reappointment or promotion. The arbitrator committed no reviewable irregularity, and the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 36
Parties
Applicant: S. Mashele; Applicant: M. Meso; Applicant: B. Howard; Applicant: F. Muthelo; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Johan Le Roux N.O.; Respondent: Department of Finance and Economic Development
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 January 2007
Case Number
JR648/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Acting Allowance, Public Service Resolution, Unfair Labour Practice, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Acting Allowance Public Service Resolution Unfair Labour Practice Review of Arbitration Award

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Mashele

Applicant

M. Meso

Applicant

B. Howard

Applicant

F. Muthelo

Applicant

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Johan Le Roux N.O.

Respondent

Department of Finance and Economic Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity in refusing acting allowances to the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was under a duty to reappoint the applicants in terms of Resolution 1 of 2002.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants qualified for acting allowances under the relevant regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the relevant clauses of Resolution 1 of 2002. The applicants were not reappointed nor did they accept the acting appointments in writing as required by the regulations. The arbitrator's reasoning was rational and reasonable, and there was no duty on the third respondent to reappoint the applicants. The applicants may have had an expectation to be reappointed, but they did not establish a right to reappointment or promotion. The arbitrator committed no reviewable irregularity, and the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.