Matjila and Others v Thoka and Others (JR2014/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 34 (27 February 2019)

Matjila and Others v Thoka and Others (JR2014/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 34 (27 February 2019)

The Labour Court determined that the true nature of the applicants' dispute related to salaries and not to promotion. The first respondent correctly engaged with the parties to ascertain the substance of the dispute and found that it was a salary matter, over which the Bargaining Council lacked jurisdiction. The applicants' characterisation of the dispute as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion was not supported by the facts and evidence presented. The Court held that the first respondent's ruling was reasonable and that there was no valid basis to set it aside. The review application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 34
Parties
Applicant: Matjila and Others; Respondent: SS Thoka; Respondent: General Public Service Bargaining Council; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2019
Case Number
JR2014/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Schensema
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion Vs Salary Dispute, Review Under Section 145 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Vs Salary Dispute Review Under Section 145 Lra

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matjila and Others

Applicant

SS Thoka

Respondent

General Public Service Bargaining Council

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to determine the dispute referred by the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute was correctly characterised as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion or was in fact a salary dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent committed misconduct by ruling on a point in limine not raised by the third respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court determined that the true nature of the applicants' dispute related to salaries and not to promotion. The first respondent correctly engaged with the parties to ascertain the substance of the dispute and found that it was a salary matter, over which the Bargaining Council lacked jurisdiction. The applicants' characterisation of the dispute as an unfair labour practice relating to promotion was not supported by the facts and evidence presented. The Court held that the first respondent's ruling was reasonable and that there was no valid basis to set it aside. The review application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.