SAMWU obo Molekwa and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (J244/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 85 (8 March 2016)

SAMWU obo Molekwa and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (J244/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 85 (8 March 2016)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the delay between suspension and the application undermined their claim. The collective agreement relied upon by the applicants had expired, and the respondent had afforded the applicants an opportunity to be heard prior to suspension. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 85
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo D Molekwa and 7 Others; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2016
Case Number
J244/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Unfair Suspension, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Urgent Interdict, Audi Alterem Partem, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Suspension Collective Agreement Interpretation Urgent Interdict Audi Alterem Partem Disciplinary Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo D Molekwa and 7 Others

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suspension of the applicant's members was unlawful for contravening the collective agreement and the Code of Good Practice.
  2. 2 Whether the matter was sufficiently urgent to warrant dispensing with the ordinary rules of the Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with the requirements of natural justice and the collective agreement prior to suspending the applicant's members.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the delay between suspension and the application undermined their claim. The collective agreement relied upon by the applicants had expired, and the respondent had afforded the applicants an opportunity to be heard prior to suspension. The settlement agreement did not amount to a waiver of the respondent's right to discipline. The applicants had an alternative remedy through the Bargaining Council, and any harm suffered would not be irreparable, as the suspension could be uplifted if found unfair in those proceedings. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, and the application for urgent relief was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.