Moyo and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS1171/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 145 (31 March 2016)

Moyo and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS1171/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 145 (31 March 2016)

The applicants' amended statement of claim fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, lacking clear and concise material facts and failing to identify any recognized or arbitrary ground for discrimination. The claims for automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination do not disclose a cause of action under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA or section 6 of the EEA, as the applicants are unable to specify the ground upon which discrimination is alleged. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction over the unfair labour practice dispute regarding non-payment of bonuses, which should have been referred to arbitration. Given the applicants' repeated failure...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 145
Parties
Applicant: Promise Moyo; Applicant: Alwyn Linzi Malan; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Case Number
JS1171/12
Procedural Posture
Exception and Special Plea / Judgment on Exception and Special Plea
Outcome
Respondent's exception and special plea upheld; applicants' claims for automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination dismissed with costs.
Judges
Voyi
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Discrimination, Employment Equity Act, Labour Relations Act, Exception Procedure, Jurisdiction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Unfair Discrimination Employment Equity Act Labour Relations Act Exception Procedure Jurisdiction

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promise Moyo

Applicant

Alwyn Linzi Malan

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception and Special Plea / Judgment on Exception and Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' amended statement of claim discloses a cause of action for automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' amended statement of claim discloses a cause of action for unfair discrimination under section 6 of the EEA.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged unfair labour practice dispute regarding non-payment of bonuses.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' amended statement of claim fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, lacking clear and concise material facts and failing to identify any recognized or arbitrary ground for discrimination. The claims for automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination do not disclose a cause of action under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA or section 6 of the EEA, as the applicants are unable to specify the ground upon which discrimination is alleged. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction over the unfair labour practice dispute regarding non-payment of bonuses, which should have been referred to arbitration. Given the applicants' repeated failure...

Court Disposition

Respondent's exception and special plea upheld; applicants' claims for automatically unfair dismissal and unfair discrimination dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent's special plea is upheld.
  • The respondent's exception is upheld.