NEHAWU v Dept of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture, Eastern Cape (P485/18) [2018] ZALCPE 39 (22 November 2018)

NEHAWU v Dept of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture, Eastern Cape (P485/18) [2018] ZALCPE 39 (22 November 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the loss of income resulting from the 'no work, no pay' policy does not, in itself, constitute exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The applicant did not provide specific evidence of irrevocable harm or individual hardship, nor did it submit confirmatory affidavits from affected employees. The court held that the application of the 'no work, no pay' principle is not an unlawful deduction under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, but rather a lawful withholding of remuneration for days not worked due to unprotected strike action. The applicant also failed to identify which members were...

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 39
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU; Respondent: Dept of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture, Eastern Cape
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Case Number
P485/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
No Work No Pay, Urgency, Deductions From Remuneration, Unprotected Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure No Work No Pay Urgency Deductions From Remuneration Unprotected Strike

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NEHAWU

Applicant

Dept of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for interim relief is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application of the 'no work, no pay' principle constitutes an unlawful deduction under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the loss of income resulting from the 'no work, no pay' policy does not, in itself, constitute exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The applicant did not provide specific evidence of irrevocable harm or individual hardship, nor did it submit confirmatory affidavits from affected employees. The court held that the application of the 'no work, no pay' principle is not an unlawful deduction under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, but rather a lawful withholding of remuneration for days not worked due to unprotected strike action. The applicant also failed to identify which members were...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs.