Radebe and Another v Mashoff Premier of Free State Province and Others (JS140/08) [2009] ZALC 20; [2009] 6 BLLR 564 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 1900 (LC) (17 February 2009)

Radebe and Another v Mashoff Premier of Free State Province and Others (JS140/08) [2009] ZALC 20; [2009] 6 BLLR 564 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 1900 (LC) (17 February 2009)

The court found that the applicants' document did not constitute a disclosure as defined by the Protected Disclosure Act, as it was based largely on speculation, opinions, and unsupported allegations rather than facts showing or tending to show impropriety. The conduct complained of was primarily that of the MEC, who was not the employer as contemplated by the PDA. The applicants failed to provide supporting documents and refused to cooperate with the investigation, undermining their claim of good faith. Even if the document were considered a disclosure, it did not meet the requirements for protection under Sections 6, 7, or 9 of the PDA. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 20
Parties
Applicant: Ntombi Gladys Radebe; Applicant: Veronica Leah Dlamini; Respondent: F B Mashoff; Respondent: M C Mokitlane; Respondent: M Ramoketsi
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2009
Case Number
JS140/08
Procedural Posture
Unfair Labour Practice Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The claims of the first and second applicants are dismissed.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure Act, Unfair Labour Practice, Occupational Detriment, Good Faith Disclosure, Remedies for Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Protected Disclosure Act Unfair Labour Practice Occupational Detriment Good Faith Disclosure Remedies for Unfair Labour Practice

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntombi Gladys Radebe

Applicant

Veronica Leah Dlamini

Applicant

F B Mashoff

Respondent

M C Mokitlane

Respondent

M Ramoketsi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Labour Practice Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants suffered occupational detriments as defined by the Protected Disclosure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit constituted a disclosure as defined in Section 1 of the Protected Disclosure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the publication of the affidavit constituted a protected disclosure under Section 1(i) of the Protected Disclosure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' document did not constitute a disclosure as defined by the Protected Disclosure Act, as it was based largely on speculation, opinions, and unsupported allegations rather than facts showing or tending to show impropriety. The conduct complained of was primarily that of the MEC, who was not the employer as contemplated by the PDA. The applicants failed to provide supporting documents and refused to cooperate with the investigation, undermining their claim of good faith. Even if the document were considered a disclosure, it did not meet the requirements for protection under Sections 6, 7, or 9 of the PDA. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to...

Court Disposition

The claims of the first and second applicants are dismissed.

Orders

  • The claims of the first and second applicants are dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.