NUMSA obo Malema and Others v Scaw Metals (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR772/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 301 (5 November 2019)

NUMSA obo Malema and Others v Scaw Metals (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR772/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 301 (5 November 2019)

The court found that the applicants' grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by the record and that their submissions did not address all the grounds raised. The commissioner had identified and determined the issue of consistency, and had considered the applicants' personal circumstances, including their lack of remorse. The applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was a legitimate dispute on the law. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 301
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA obo Malema & 42 Others; Respondent: Scaw Metals (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Karen Kleinot NO
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2019
Case Number
JR772/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Labour Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Omphemetse Mooki
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Consistency of Sanction, Commissioner Duties, Remorse in Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Consistency of Sanction Commissioner Duties Remorse in Dismissal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA obo Malema & 42 Others

Applicant

Scaw Metals (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Karen Kleinot NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner failed to identify and decide the issue of consistency as raised by the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner failed to consider the appropriateness of the sanction given the evidence before her.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner failed to consider the applicants' personal circumstances after finding them guilty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by the record and that their submissions did not address all the grounds raised. The commissioner had identified and determined the issue of consistency, and had considered the applicants' personal circumstances, including their lack of remorse. The applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there was a legitimate dispute on the law. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.