Ngobeni v Commission for Gender Equality (C685/16) [2017] ZALCCT 63 (29 November 2017)

Ngobeni v Commission for Gender Equality (C685/16) [2017] ZALCCT 63 (29 November 2017)

The applicant's claim was based solely on section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to adjudicate individual disputes regarding unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment. The normal remedy under section 64(4) is strike action, which is not available to individual employees. The applicant did not plead breach of contract or seek specific performance under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which could have provided jurisdiction. The Court must determine jurisdiction based on the pleadings, and as the applicant did not rely on the appropriate statutory provisions, the Labour Court lacks...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 63
Parties
Applicant: Sandile Ngobeni; Respondent: Commission for Gender Equality
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2017
Case Number
C685/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits
Outcome
Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change to Terms, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Specific Performance, Breach of Employment Contract
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unilateral Change to Terms Jurisdiction of Labour Court Specific Performance Breach of Employment Contract

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandile Ngobeni

Applicant

Commission for Gender Equality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual employee's claim based solely on section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act for a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment.
  2. 2 Is specific performance or breach of contract available as a remedy under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act when not pleaded.
  3. 3 Should the referral be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim was based solely on section 64(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court to adjudicate individual disputes regarding unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment. The normal remedy under section 64(4) is strike action, which is not available to individual employees. The applicant did not plead breach of contract or seek specific performance under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which could have provided jurisdiction. The Court must determine jurisdiction based on the pleadings, and as the applicant did not rely on the appropriate statutory provisions, the Labour Court lacks...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The referral is dismissed with costs.