SAMWU obo Members v Protrans (Pty) Ltd (JR1043/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 218 (30 May 2017)

SAMWU obo Members v Protrans (Pty) Ltd (JR1043/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 218 (30 May 2017)

The court found that the arbitrator erred by accepting the employees' allegation that the dismissal was for participation in an unprotected strike, rather than examining the employer's stated reason of misconduct. On the objective facts, the dismissals were for misconduct, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Bargaining Council. The issuance of a certificate of non-resolution does not confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator. The court set aside the arbitrator's jurisdictional ruling and replaced it with an order confirming the Bargaining Council's jurisdiction to determine the misconduct dismissal dispute. Given the ongoing relationship between the parties and the conduct of both...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 218
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo 157 Members; Respondent: Protrans (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2017
Case Number
JR1043/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Jurisdictional Review of Arbitration Ruling
Outcome
Jurisdictional ruling set aside; Bargaining Council has jurisdiction; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
G Moshoana
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Unprotected Strike, Misconduct Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Unprotected Strike Misconduct Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo 157 Members

Applicant

Protrans (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Jurisdictional Review of Arbitration Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to determine the dismissal dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator correctly determined the true reason for the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the issuance of a certificate of non-resolution confers jurisdiction on the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator erred by accepting the employees' allegation that the dismissal was for participation in an unprotected strike, rather than examining the employer's stated reason of misconduct. On the objective facts, the dismissals were for misconduct, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Bargaining Council. The issuance of a certificate of non-resolution does not confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator. The court set aside the arbitrator's jurisdictional ruling and replaced it with an order confirming the Bargaining Council's jurisdiction to determine the misconduct dismissal dispute. Given the ongoing relationship between the parties and the conduct of both...

Court Disposition

Jurisdictional ruling set aside; Bargaining Council has jurisdiction; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The jurisdictional ruling issued by the 2nd respondent under case number RPNT271626842683 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is replaced with an order that the Bargaining Council has jurisdiction to determine the issue of misconduct as the reason for the dismissal of the employees.