Matlala v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services and Another (J 2743/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 247 (6 December 2011)
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing the applicant's suspension without pay. The evidence showed that only the seriousness of the alleged offence was considered, without substantial evidence that the case against the applicant was so strong...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 247
- Parties
- Applicant: Josias Matlala; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Services; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner, Gauteng Mzwandile Petros
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J 2743/11
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Outcome of Unfair Labour Practice Dispute
- Outcome
- Application granted. Suspension without pay set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
- Judges
- R Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Precautionary Suspension, Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Procedure, Suspension Without Pay
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Josias Matlala
Applicant
National Commissioner of the South African Police Services
Respondent
Provincial Commissioner, Gauteng Mzwandile Petros
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Outcome of Unfair Labour Practice Dispute
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents complied with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing a precautionary suspension without pay.
- 2 Whether the applicant's representations against suspension without pay were properly considered.
- 3 Whether the suspension without pay should be set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing the applicant's suspension without pay. The evidence showed that only the seriousness of the alleged offence was considered, without substantial evidence that the case against the applicant was so strong as to justify suspension without pay. Furthermore, the applicant's representations were not adequately considered. As a result, the suspension without pay was set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Court Disposition
Application granted. Suspension without pay set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Orders
- The applicant’s suspension without pay is set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute referred to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council on 25 November 2011.
- The respondent must pay the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN)
Case: J 2743/11
In the matter between:
JOSIAS MATLALA ......................................................................Applicant
and
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES .........................First Respondent
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER, GAUTENG
MZWANDILE PETROS ...................................................First Respondent
JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE, J:
Having considered the matter, I find that:
The court must to be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents had not acted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations Governing the imposition of a Precautionary suspension.
In deciding to impose a precautionary suspension, the respondents are obliged to act in accordance with the requirements of the said regulation.
The evidence showed that the respondents only considered the seriousness of the offence relating to which they were contemplating disciplinary action against the applicant.
However, there was no substantial evidence to demonstratethe basis on which the respondents were satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the case against the employee was so strong it was likely that that he would be convicted of a crime and dismissed.
It is also not clear that the applicant’s representations against being suspended without pay were in fact considered.
It is further recorded that the respondent has undertaken that the applicant shall not be evicted from his residence located at no 604 SAPS Residential Building, Suiderland Flat, pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice. Accordingly, an order in respect of this relief is unnecessary.
Order
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
The applicant’s suspension without pay is set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute which the applicant referred to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council on 25 November 2011.
The respondent must pay the costs of the application.
ROBERT LAGRANGE
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
Date of hearing : 5 December 2011
Date of judgment: 6 December 2011
Appearances:
For the applicant : L M Malan instructed by Allardyce & Partners
For the respondent: B M Lecose instructed by the State Attorney