SAMWU and Another v Umlalazi Municipality (D501/09) [2009] ZALC 134 (3 December 2009)

SAMWU and Another v Umlalazi Municipality (D501/09) [2009] ZALC 134 (3 December 2009)

The court found that the Respondent had failed to prosecute its review application with diligence and had provided no explanation for the delay exceeding one year. The union was entitled to depose to the founding affidavit, as the facts were objective and related to its member. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an abuse of process and was grossly unfair to the employee, who should not bear the brunt of unexplained delay. The court held that the arbitration award should be made an order of court and that the Respondent should pay the Applicants' costs.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 134
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU; Applicant: J. Madonsela; Respondent: Umlalazi Municipality
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2009
Case Number
D501/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA
Outcome
Application granted; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against Respondent.
Judges
Conradie AJ
Legal Topics
Section 158 1 C Application, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Unfair Dismissal, Review Proceedings Delay
Labour Law Section 158 1 C Application Arbitration Award Enforcement Unfair Dismissal Review Proceedings Delay

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU

Applicant

J. Madonsela

Applicant

Umlalazi Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the SALGBC should be made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's delay in prosecuting the review application justifies refusal of enforcement.
  3. 3 Whether the founding affidavit by the union's Provincial Secretary is admissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent had failed to prosecute its review application with diligence and had provided no explanation for the delay exceeding one year. The union was entitled to depose to the founding affidavit, as the facts were objective and related to its member. The Respondent's conduct amounted to an abuse of process and was grossly unfair to the employee, who should not bear the brunt of unexplained delay. The court held that the arbitration award should be made an order of court and that the Respondent should pay the Applicants' costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against Respondent.

Orders

  • The award under case number KPD 100703, dated 6 October 2008, is made an order of court.
  • The Respondent is to pay the Applicants' costs in this matter.