NUMSA obo Members v Hitachi Construction Machinery SA (Pty) Ltd (J390/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 105 (12 March 2018)

NUMSA obo Members v Hitachi Construction Machinery SA (Pty) Ltd (J390/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 105 (12 March 2018)

The court found that the arbitration award was clear and required the respondent to implement wage equalisation in terms of clause 5 of the collective agreement. The respondent failed to provide evidence of compliance and presented only bare denials. The defence of ambiguity was rejected as self-defeating, especially since the respondent simultaneously claimed compliance. The court concluded that the respondent had not complied with the award and that there was no impediment to making the award an order of court. The respondent's opposition was deemed unreasonable, warranting a costs order against it.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 105
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA obo Members; Respondent: Hitachi Construction Machinery SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2018
Case Number
J390/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA
Outcome
Application granted. The arbitration award is made an order of court. Costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Section 158 1 C Application, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Collective Agreement Compliance, Costs Award
Labour Law Section 158 1 C Application Arbitration Award Enforcement Collective Agreement Compliance Costs Award

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA obo Members

Applicant

Hitachi Construction Machinery SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued on 2 May 2014 is valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has complied with the arbitration award.
  3. 3 Whether the award is sufficiently clear to be made an order of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitration award was clear and required the respondent to implement wage equalisation in terms of clause 5 of the collective agreement. The respondent failed to provide evidence of compliance and presented only bare denials. The defence of ambiguity was rejected as self-defeating, especially since the respondent simultaneously claimed compliance. The court concluded that the respondent had not complied with the award and that there was no impediment to making the award an order of court. The respondent's opposition was deemed unreasonable, warranting a costs order against it.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The arbitration award is made an order of court. Costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The award issued on 2 May 2014 is hereby made an order of court.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs.