SAMU obo Mathabathe v The SALGBC and Others (JR 24/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 228 (11 August 2022)

SAMU obo Mathabathe v The SALGBC and Others (JR 24/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 228 (11 August 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving an unfair labour practice. The allegation that Chauke did not apply for the position was rebutted by clear evidence that he did apply, was shortlisted, and appointed. The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and justified by the evidence presented. The applicant’s reliance on the collective agreement was unfounded, as there was no breach established. The review application was meritless and bound to fail, as there was no evidence of irregularity or misconduct by the commissioner.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 228
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo NS Mathabathe; Respondent: THE SALGBC; Respondent: Commissioner Willem Koekemoer; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2022
Case Number
JR 24/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion, Collective Agreement, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Collective Agreement Arbitration Review

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo NS Mathabathe

Applicant

THE SALGBC

Respondent

Commissioner Willem Koekemoer

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent was reasonable and justified by the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality committed an unfair labour practice in relation to the promotion of Mathabathe.
  3. 3 Whether the collective agreement was breached in the shortlisting and appointment process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving an unfair labour practice. The allegation that Chauke did not apply for the position was rebutted by clear evidence that he did apply, was shortlisted, and appointed. The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and justified by the evidence presented. The applicant’s reliance on the collective agreement was unfounded, as there was no breach established. The review application was meritless and bound to fail, as there was no evidence of irregularity or misconduct by the commissioner.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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