National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry v Marcus NO and Others (JR 2411/08) [2010] ZALC 132; [2011] 2 BLLR 169 (LC) ; (2011) 32 ILJ 678 (LC) (8 September 2010)

National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry v Marcus NO and Others (JR 2411/08) [2010] ZALC 132; [2011] 2 BLLR 169 (LC) ; (2011) 32 ILJ 678 (LC) (8 September 2010)

The court held that the commissioner did not misconceive the nature of the enquiry or the industry definition. The commissioner correctly found, based on the evidence, that the third respondent's business is the hiring out of tipper trucks and drivers for use by clients, with no obligation to transport goods for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 132
Parties
Applicant: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry; Respondent: Commissioner M H Marcus N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Richards Rentals (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2010
Case Number
JR 2411/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Demarcation Dispute, Scope of Bargaining Council, Review of Arbitration Award, Collective Bargaining Structures
Labour Law Civil Procedure Demarcation Dispute Scope of Bargaining Council Review of Arbitration Award Collective Bargaining Structures

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry

Applicant

Commissioner M H Marcus N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Richards Rentals (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent's business falls within the registered scope of the applicant bargaining council.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner misconceived the industry definition and committed reviewable errors.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner adopted the correct legal approach to the demarcation dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner did not misconceive the nature of the enquiry or the industry definition. The commissioner correctly found, based on the evidence, that the third respondent's business is the hiring out of tipper trucks and drivers for use by clients, with no obligation to transport goods for reward. The commissioner applied the appropriate legal principles and gave due consideration to the facts and the scope of the bargaining council's registration. The applicant's arguments for a broader interpretation of the industry definition were rejected, as the commissioner was not required to adopt an expansive approach. The review application failed to establish any...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the demarcation award is dismissed.