Phahlane and Another v Emfuleni Local Municipality (J2024/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 326 (12 September 2017)

Phahlane and Another v Emfuleni Local Municipality (J2024/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 326 (12 September 2017)

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...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 326
Parties
Applicant: Lehlohonolo Vincent Phahlane; Applicant: Eric Michael Moloto; Respondent: Emfuleni Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Case Number
J2024/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
B Whitcher
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Collective Agreement, Urgency Requirements
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Suspension Jurisdiction Collective Agreement Urgency Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehlohonolo Vincent Phahlane

Applicant

Eric Michael Moloto

Applicant

Emfuleni Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and justifies immediate relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a case based on unlawfulness or invalidity of their suspension.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction over the alleged unfair labour practice.

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...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.