Nawa and Another v Department of Trade and Industry (J343/97) [1997] ZALC 4 (27 June 1997)

Nawa and Another v Department of Trade and Industry (J343/97) [1997] ZALC 4 (27 June 1997)

The court found that the decentralisation programme proposed by the respondents did not infringe the applicants' rights under the Labour Relations Act, as it did not affect their terms and conditions of employment nor constitute an unfair labour practice as defined in Schedule 7, Item 2(1)(b). The restructuring fell within the employer's managerial prerogative. The allegations of victimisation were not substantiated by concrete evidence and did not warrant an interdict. The application failed on both grounds and was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, following guidelines from Num v Ergo.

Citation
[1997] ZALC 4
Parties
Applicant: Lancelot Nawa; Applicant: Msamo Teche; Respondent: Department of Trade and Industry; Respondent: Directorate Communications; Respondent: Mr I Lahadin; Respondent: Dr Rustomichi; Respondent: Mr A Irwin
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 1997
Case Number
J343/97
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Managerial Prerogative, Victimisation, Interdict, Restructuring, Section 189 Dismissal
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Managerial Prerogative Victimisation Interdict Restructuring Section 189 Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancelot Nawa

Applicant

Msamo Teche

Applicant

Department of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Directorate Communications

Respondent

Mr I Lahadin

Respondent

Dr Rustomichi

Respondent

Mr A Irwin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed decentralisation programme constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are at risk of victimisation by the respondents and whether such conduct can be interdicted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' job security or terms and conditions of employment are threatened by the restructuring.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decentralisation programme proposed by the respondents did not infringe the applicants' rights under the Labour Relations Act, as it did not affect their terms and conditions of employment nor constitute an unfair labour practice as defined in Schedule 7, Item 2(1)(b). The restructuring fell within the employer's managerial prerogative. The allegations of victimisation were not substantiated by concrete evidence and did not warrant an interdict. The application failed on both grounds and was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, following guidelines from Num v Ergo.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.