Ndlovu and Others v University of Witwatersrand (J 1775/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 265 (2 July 2025)

Ndlovu and Others v University of Witwatersrand (J 1775/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 265 (2 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a unilateral change to conditions of employment, as the shift system was introduced after consultation and agreement with employee representatives. The jurisdictional requirements of section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act were not met, as the applicants withdrew their CCMA referral and did not initiate a new one, thereby failing to trigger the Labour Court's jurisdiction. The monetary claim under the BCEA involved material disputes of fact, including calculations and contractual interpretations, which are inappropriate for resolution in motion proceedings and must be determined at trial. The court also noted that prescription...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 265
Parties
Applicant: Qiniso Artholt Ndlovu and 19 Others; Respondent: University of the Witwatersrand
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2025
Case Number
J 1775/22
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Hearing Objections in Limine and Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
F Venter
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change to Conditions of Employment, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Prescription, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Disputes of Fact, Motion Vs Trial Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unilateral Change to Conditions of Employment Jurisdiction of Labour Court Prescription Basic Conditions of Employment Act Disputes of Fact Motion Vs Trial Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Qiniso Artholt Ndlovu and 19 Others

Applicant

University of the Witwatersrand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Hearing Objections in Limine and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether there was a unilateral change to conditions of employment by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to restoration of previous conditions of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a unilateral change to conditions of employment, as the shift system was introduced after consultation and agreement with employee representatives. The jurisdictional requirements of section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act were not met, as the applicants withdrew their CCMA referral and did not initiate a new one, thereby failing to trigger the Labour Court's jurisdiction. The monetary claim under the BCEA involved material disputes of fact, including calculations and contractual interpretations, which are inappropriate for resolution in motion proceedings and must be determined at trial. The court also noted that prescription...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.