Northern Cape Provincial Administration v Hambridge and Others (J1907/98) [1999] ZALC 45 (24 March 1999)

Northern Cape Provincial Administration v Hambridge and Others (J1907/98) [1999] ZALC 45 (24 March 1999)

The court held that the commissioner erred in law by interpreting the acting allowance as a 'benefit' under item 2(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The dispute was essentially about remuneration for acting in a higher position, which is a matter of mutual interest and not an unfair labour practice. The CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate such disputes. The award of the commissioner was therefore reviewed and set aside, and replaced with a finding that the employer did not commit an unfair labour practice in relation to Ms Roos. No costs were awarded against Ms Roos, and the irregularity regarding Andrew Levy and Associates (Pty) Ltd's rights of appearance was condoned, but the firm...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 45
Parties
Applicant: Northern Cape Provincial Administration; Respondent: Commissioner E Hambidge NO; Respondent: HOSPERSA; Respondent: Roos, Frederica
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 1999
Case Number
J1907/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The review application succeeds; the commissioner's award is set aside and replaced with a finding that the employer did not commit an unfair labour practice.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Acting Allowance, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Collective Agreement Interpretation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Acting Allowance Jurisdiction of Ccma Collective Agreement Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northern Cape Provincial Administration

Applicant

Commissioner E Hambidge NO

Respondent

HOSPERSA

Respondent

Roos, Frederica

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute regarding non-payment of acting allowance.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute concerned an unfair labour practice or a matter of mutual interest.
  3. 3 Whether the acting allowance constitutes a 'benefit' under item 2(1)(b) of the 7th Schedule to the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner erred in law by interpreting the acting allowance as a 'benefit' under item 2(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act. The dispute was essentially about remuneration for acting in a higher position, which is a matter of mutual interest and not an unfair labour practice. The CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate such disputes. The award of the commissioner was therefore reviewed and set aside, and replaced with a finding that the employer did not commit an unfair labour practice in relation to Ms Roos. No costs were awarded against Ms Roos, and the irregularity regarding Andrew Levy and Associates (Pty) Ltd's rights of appearance was condoned, but the firm...

Court Disposition

The review application succeeds; the commissioner's award is set aside and replaced with a finding that the employer did not commit an unfair labour practice.

Orders

  • The award of the first respondent is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an award that the employer did not commit an unfair labour practice in regard to Ms Roos.
  • There will be no order for costs.