NEHAWU v Eastern Cape, Department of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture (P485/18) [2018] ZALCPE 43 (22 November 2018)

NEHAWU v Eastern Cape, Department of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture (P485/18) [2018] ZALCPE 43 (22 November 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as loss of income is not in itself a ground for urgent relief unless exceptional circumstances or irrevocable harm are demonstrated. The applicant provided no specific evidence of individual hardship or irrevocable harm, relying only on unsubstantiated statements. The application of the 'no work, no pay' principle does not amount to a deduction under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as remuneration is simply not payable for days not worked due to strike action. The applicant also failed to identify which members were entitled to remuneration or provide confirmatory affidavits. Consequently, the...

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 43
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU; Respondent: Eastern Cape, Department of Sports, Recreation, Arts and Culture
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Case Number
P485/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Application for Urgent Relief; Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency
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 in Interdicts, Deductions From Remuneration, Unprotected Strike
Labour Law Civil Procedure No Work No Pay Urgency in Interdicts 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NEHAWU

Applicant

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

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Application for Urgent Relief; Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent interim relief against salary deductions meets the threshold for urgency.
  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 established exceptional circumstances or irrevocable harm justifying urgent relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as loss of income is not in itself a ground for urgent relief unless exceptional circumstances or irrevocable harm are demonstrated. The applicant provided no specific evidence of individual hardship or irrevocable harm, relying only on unsubstantiated statements. The application of the 'no work, no pay' principle does not amount to a deduction under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as remuneration is simply not payable for days not worked due to strike action. The applicant also failed to identify which members were entitled to remuneration or provide confirmatory affidavits. Consequently, the...

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.