Mogale City Local Municipality v Matlala and Others (JR756/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 282 (14 July 2016)
The court found that the applicant did not make out a proper case to review and set aside the arbitration award in favour of Mr. Mphaphuli. The grounds advanced by the applicant, including the alleged failure to address the water-meter charge, the drawing of adverse inferences, and the waiver of collective agreement...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 282
- Parties
- Applicant: Mogale City Local Municipality; Respondent: Commissioner ML Matlala; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: IMATU obo Colbert Mphaphuli
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR756/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Judges
- A Bakker
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Collective Agreement Rights, Employee Misconduct, Tampering With Meters
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mogale City Local Municipality
Applicant
Commissioner ML Matlala
Respondent
South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Respondent
IMATU obo Colbert Mphaphuli
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court erred in failing to address the water-meter tampering charge against Mr. Mphaphuli.
- 2 Whether the court should have drawn adverse inferences against Mr. Mphaphuli regarding alleged fraud.
- 3 Whether an employee can waive collective agreement rights under the applicable law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not make out a proper case to review and set aside the arbitration award in favour of Mr. Mphaphuli. The grounds advanced by the applicant, including the alleged failure to address the water-meter charge, the drawing of adverse inferences, and the waiver of collective agreement rights, did not convince the court that its judgment was erroneous. However, the court acknowledged that the Labour Appeal Court might reach a different conclusion and therefore granted leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is granted.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: JR756/2013
MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
and
COMMISSIONER ML MATLALA First Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent
IMATU obo COLBERT MPHAPHULI Third Respondent
Date of Judgment (in chambers): 14 July 2016
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
BAKKER, AJ
[1] On 21 April 2016 I dismissed the Applicant’s review application. An application for leave to appeal followed on 16 May 2016.
[2] The Applicant takes no issue with the manner in which I applied the review test.
[3] The grounds for seeking leave to appeal are that I erred:
i. at para [4] of the judgment in failing to mention that Mr. Mphaphuli was also dismissed for tampering and damaging a water meter. This, it is suggested, resulted in a material error of fact. The Applicant contends that this court ought to have made a ruling on the water-meter charge, but failed to do so; and
ii. in finding that the Municipality failed to prove its case against Mr. Mphaphuli. The Applicant asserts that this court ought to have drawn adverse inferences against Mr. Mphaphuli and ought to have found that the more plausible conclusion is that he defrauded his employer by tampering with the electricity- and water meters; and
iii. in finding that an employee is unable ‘to waive his collective agreement rights’ which resulted in an error of law; and
iv. in finding that the First Respondent’s arbitration award was reasonable.
[4] I remain unconvinced that the Applicant made out a proper case to review and set aside the First Respondent’s arbitration award in favour of the (now deceased) Mr. Mphaphuli. However, it is not unimaginable that the Labour Appeal Court might come to a different conclusion.
[5] In the premises, the following order is made:
i. The application for leave to appeal is granted.
Costs of the application shall be costs in cause.
Anton Bakker Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa