PSA obo Fritz v Human Science Research Council and Others (JR2405/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 94 (9 May 2019)

PSA obo Fritz v Human Science Research Council and Others (JR2405/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 94 (9 May 2019)

The court found that the applicant was appointed to a new position following a recruitment process, not redeployed under the transfer and redeployment policy. The letter of appointment did not stipulate a salary reduction after 12 months, nor was there evidence that the applicant was informed of such a reduction or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 94
Parties
Applicant: PSA obo Lee-Ann Fritz; Respondent: Human Science Research Council; Respondent: Commissioner Eugene Mutileni; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2019
Case Number
JR2405/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The respondent committed an unfair labour practice. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the difference in salary from 1 April 2015 to date. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mosebo
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Salary Reduction, Review of Arbitration Award, Transfer and Redeployment Policy, Parol Evidence Rule
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Salary Reduction Review of Arbitration Award Transfer and Redeployment Policy Parol Evidence Rule

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PSA obo Lee-Ann Fritz

Applicant

Human Science Research Council

Respondent

Commissioner Eugene Mutileni

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was appointed to a new position or redeployed under the transfer and redeployment policy.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was adequately informed that her salary would be reduced after 12 months.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner misapplied the law of contract and the parol evidence rule in the arbitration award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was appointed to a new position following a recruitment process, not redeployed under the transfer and redeployment policy. The letter of appointment did not stipulate a salary reduction after 12 months, nor was there evidence that the applicant was informed of such a reduction or the budget for the position. The commissioner misapplied the law of contract and the parol evidence rule by relying on extraneous evidence and assuming the applicant's knowledge of salary changes without supporting evidence. The arbitration award was unreasonable and could not have been made by a reasonable decision maker. The award was reviewed and set aside, and the...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The respondent committed an unfair labour practice. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the difference in salary from 1 April 2015 to date. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The second respondent's award dated 21 September 2015 is reviewed and set aside.