Mukwevho and Others v ECCAWUSA (J3946/98) [1998] ZALC 148 (17 December 1998)

Mukwevho and Others v ECCAWUSA (J3946/98) [1998] ZALC 148 (17 December 1998)

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act, specifically by not expressly requiring restoration of the status quo ante in their referral to the CCMA. Even if such a requirement had been made, the relief sought exceeded the 30-day period permitted by the Act, and the respondent had not agreed to any extension. Granting the orders would have provided the applicants with relief beyond what the Act allows, undermining its substantive provisions and objects. The Act contemplates restoration of employment terms only for a limited period, after which industrial action is the appropriate...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 148
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Mukwevho; Applicant: Sebidiwo Molekane; Applicant: Sipho Busakwe; Applicant: Wonga Dada; Applicant: Phahla Matlala; Respondent: ECCAWUSA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 December 1998
Case Number
J3946/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Grogan
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change of Employment Terms, Section 64 Lra, Urgent Interdict, Restoration of Status Quo
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unilateral Change of Employment Terms Section 64 Lra Urgent Interdict Restoration of Status Quo

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Mukwevho

Applicant

Sebidiwo Molekane

Applicant

Sipho Busakwe

Applicant

Wonga Dada

Applicant

Phahla Matlala

Applicant

ECCAWUSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent relief compelling the respondent to restore their original terms and conditions of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants complied with the procedural requirements under section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought exceeds what is permitted under the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act, specifically by not expressly requiring restoration of the status quo ante in their referral to the CCMA. Even if such a requirement had been made, the relief sought exceeded the 30-day period permitted by the Act, and the respondent had not agreed to any extension. Granting the orders would have provided the applicants with relief beyond what the Act allows, undermining its substantive provisions and objects. The Act contemplates restoration of employment terms only for a limited period, after which industrial action is the appropriate...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.