Public Servants Association of South Africa v Department of Employment and Labour (Leave to Appeal) (J616/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 29 (23 January 2025)
The court found that, given the limited jurisprudence from the Labour Appeal Court on section 111(3) appeals and the importance of the issues raised regarding the registration of union constitutional amendments, it was appropriate and in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be granted. The court clarified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 29
- Parties
- Applicant: Public Servants Association of South Africa; Respondent: Department of Employment and Labour; Respondent: Registrar of Labour Relations
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J616/22
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Section 111(3) LRA Appeal.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is granted; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- L Steenkamp
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Registration of Union Constitution, Labour Relations Act, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Public Servants Association of South Africa
Applicant
Department of Employment and Labour
Respondent
Registrar of Labour Relations
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Section 111(3) LRA Appeal.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Labour Appeal Court against the judgment ordering registration of the applicant's amended constitution.
- 2 Whether there are sufficient prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
- 3 Whether the reference to section 91 of the LRA in the previous judgment constituted a material error.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, given the limited jurisprudence from the Labour Appeal Court on section 111(3) appeals and the importance of the issues raised regarding the registration of union constitutional amendments, it was appropriate and in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be granted. The court clarified that the reference to section 91 of the LRA in the previous judgment was a typographical error and did not affect the substance or outcome of the decision. The application for leave to appeal was properly brought under the rules prevailing at the time. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court was granted, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is granted; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: J 616/22
In the matter between:
PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR First Respondent
REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS
Second Respondent
Heard: 31 October 2024
Delivered: 23 January 2025
JUDGMENT – LEAVE TO APPEAL
STEENKAMP, AJ
Introduction
[1] On 02 May 2024, I handed down judgment in the appeal launched by the Applicant in accordance with section 111(3) of the Labour Relations
Act[1] (LRA), against the First and/or Second Respondent’s refusal to approve, register and endorse the Applicant’s amended
constitution.
[2] I upheld the appeal and ordered the Second Respondent to approve and register the Applicant’s amendments to its constitution in terms of section 101(3) of the LRA within 14 days from the date of the order and to send the Applicant a copy of the resolution endorsed by the Second Respondent, certifying that the amendments have been registered in terms of section 101(3)(b) of the LRA within 10 days from the date upon which the amendments were approved and registered. The Respondents were further ordered to pay
the costs of the appeal on a party-and-party scale.
[3] For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties as in convention.
[4] The First and Second Respondents launched an application for leave to appeal in terms of Rule 30 of the now repealed rules of this Court[2] on or about 20 May 2024, and filed their submissions in support of leave to appeal on or about 3 June 2024.
[5] The Applicant filed its opposing submissions on or about 7 June 2024.
[6] I was favoured with the pleadings in the application for leave to appeal on 6 September 2024, and on my directive, the application came before me for oral argument on 31 October 2024.
[7] The Respondents base their application for leave to appeal on purported errors of fact and errors in law. I will immediately state that the reference to section 91 of the LRA at paragraph 12 of the judgment is incorrect and ought to have read as a reference to section 91 of the constitution of the PSA, which is apparent from the context. In any event, nothing turns on this, and it did not inform the decision that this Court arrived at.
[8] Having considered the application for leave to appeal, and in view of the scarcity of judgments by the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) on section 111(3) appeals, I am of the view that it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice for the LAC to consider the matter as contemplated in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.[3]
[9] In the premises, I make the following order:
Order
1.Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is granted;
2.There is no order as to costs.
L Steenkamp
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv L M Malan SC
Instructed by: Bowman Gilfillan Inc
For the Respondent: Adv A Ramawele SC with Adv E B Ndebele
Instructed by: The State Attorney
[1] Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
[2] The Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court GN 1665 of 1996 was repealed and replaced with Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of the Labour Court GN 4775 of 2024 effective 17 July 2024. This application for leave to appeal was launched properly as contemplated in the rules that prevailed at the time of making the current application.
[3] Act 10 of 2013