NEHAWU obo Muloiwa and Another v University of Venda (JS522/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 280 (24 July 2014)

NEHAWU obo Muloiwa and Another v University of Venda (JS522/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 280 (24 July 2014)

The court found that the strike was unprotected, as previously declared by an interim order that was never discharged. The employees committed gross misconduct by leading and participating in the unprotected strike, defying court orders, addressing unauthorised meetings, and ignoring instructions from the Vice Chancellor. Their actions aggravated the misconduct, especially as shop stewards, and rendered the employment relationship intolerable. The disciplinary process was fair, and the employees chose not to participate in their hearings or present mitigating evidence. The dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, and the referral was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 280
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU obo Muloiwa & Another; Respondent: University of Venda
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 July 2014
Case Number
JS522/12
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Judgment After Stated Case and Written Submissions
Outcome
Referral dismissed with costs.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Unprotected Strike, Disciplinary Procedure, Gross Misconduct, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Unprotected Strike Disciplinary Procedure Gross Misconduct Procedural Fairness

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

NEHAWU obo Muloiwa & Another

Applicant

University of Venda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Judgment After Stated Case and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the dismissal of the two employees automatically unfair under section 187(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act?
  2. 2 Did the employees commit misconduct justifying dismissal under the university's disciplinary code?
  3. 3 Was the strike protected or unprotected under the Labour Relations Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the strike was unprotected, as previously declared by an interim order that was never discharged. The employees committed gross misconduct by leading and participating in the unprotected strike, defying court orders, addressing unauthorised meetings, and ignoring instructions from the Vice Chancellor. Their actions aggravated the misconduct, especially as shop stewards, and rendered the employment relationship intolerable. The disciplinary process was fair, and the employees chose not to participate in their hearings or present mitigating evidence. The dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, and the referral was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ referral is dismissed with costs.