Phahlane and Another v Emfuleni Local Municipality (J2024/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 326 (12 September 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 326
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- B Whitcher
- Case number
- J2024/17
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- B Whitcher
- Case number
- J2024/17
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish urgency, did not plead or attach a specific provision of a collective agreement to support their claim of unlawfulness, and did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The court found that the applicants' complaint was essentially about the fairness of their suspension, which constitutes an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labour practices as a court of first instance; such matters must be referred to the relevant bargaining council. The applicants did not provide reasons why they could not obtain appropriate redress through the alternative remedy, nor did they show that the precautionary suspension on full pay would cause irreparable harm.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lehlohonolo Vincent Phahlane
Applicant Counsel: M PetlaneEric Michael Moloto
Applicant Counsel: M MokgatleEmfuleni Local Municipality
Respondent Counsel: W Mokhari SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is urgent and justifies immediate relief.
- 02
Whether the applicants have established a case based on unlawfulness or invalidity of their suspension.
- 03
Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction over the alleged unfair labour practice.
- 04
Whether the applicants have alternative remedies available.
- 05
Whether irreparable harm has been demonstrated.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants alleged that their suspension was unlawful, invalid, and void, referencing the Labour Relations Act, the Code of Good Practice, and legal principles concerning fairness. They argued that the suspension was procedurally and substantively unfair and sought urgent relief from the court.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the applicants failed to establish urgency, did not plead or attach a relevant collective agreement provision, and that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction over unfair labour practices. The respondent argued that the applicants have an alternative remedy through referral to the bargaining council and have not demonstrated irreparable harm.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act
The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction as a court of first instance regarding the fairness of a suspension; such matters must be referred as unfair labour practices to the relevant bargaining council.
- 02
Labour Court Practice
Applicants must establish urgency and demonstrate irreparable harm to justify urgent relief.
- 03
City of Cape Town v Independent Municipal and Allied Workers Union and Others [2015] ZALCCT 58
A party must plead and attach the specific provision of a collective agreement relied upon for a claim of unlawfulness.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish urgency, did not plead or attach a specific provision of a collective agreement to support their claim of unlawfulness, and did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The court found that the applicants' complaint was essentially about the fairness of their suspension, which constitutes an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labour practices as a court of first instance; such matters must be referred to the relevant bargaining council. The applicants did not provide reasons why they could not obtain appropriate redress through the alternative remedy, nor did they show that the precautionary suspension on full pay would cause irreparable harm.
Obiter and limits
- The precautionary suspension is on full pay and is of limited duration, which mitigates potential harm.
- The applicants only attempted to rely on a collective agreement at the hearing, which is procedurally impermissible.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: J 2024/17
In the matter between:
LEHLOHONOLO
VINCENT PHAHLANE First Applicant
ERIC
MICHAEL MOLOTO Second Applicant and
EMFULENI
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Respondent
Heard: 12 September 2017
Delivered: 12 September 2017
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER J
[1] This urgent application is dismissed for the reasons that follow.
[2] The applicants did not address why this matter is urgent.
[3] Although the applicant’s use words such as unlawful, invalid and void, they have failed to plead a specific provision of a collective agreement and attach same which gives rise to a case based on unlawfulness. They only attempted to do so at the hearing, which is not permitted. In any event, the applicability of the collective agreement they referred to is in doubt considering the decision of the Labour Court in the City of Cape Town v Independent Municipal and Allied Workers Union and Others.[1]
[4] Moreover where they say the suspension is invalid because it is for invalid reasons, they simply motivate why in their view their suspension is unfair and refer the court to the LRA, the Code of Good Practice and legal principles relevant to the fairness or otherwise of a suspension. The application, read as a whole demonstrate that they complain that the suspension is procedurally and substantively unfair.
[5] In this regard they have an alternative recourse (alternative remedy), namely a referral of an unfair labour practice to the
relevant bargaining council. This court is not a court of first instance regarding the fairness of a suspension and has no jurisdiction over unfair labour practices.
[6] The applicants do not state why they would not be afforded appropriate redress in filing an unfair labour practice with the
relevant bargaining council.
[7] The application also does not address whether the applicant’s will suffer irreparable harm and if so what harm they will suffer if this application is not granted. This is relevant considering the precautionary suspension is on full pay and by its nature is of a limited duration.
Order:
[8] The application is dismissed with no order as to costs
______
B Whitcher
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants:
M Petlane and M Mokgatle
Instructed by:
Sihunu Attorneys
For the Respondent:
W Mokhari SC
Instructed by:
Werkmans Attorneys
[1] [2015] ZALCCT 58; [2015] 12 BLLR 1197 (LC); (2016) 37 ILJ 147 (LC), dated 17 September 2015.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.