Shortridge v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1551/2006) [2007] ZALC 38; (2007) 28 ILJ 2328 (LC) (15 June 2007)

Shortridge v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1551/2006) [2007] ZALC 38; (2007) 28 ILJ 2328 (LC) (15 June 2007)

The court held that the application was improperly brought under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, as that section only applies to the review of arbitration awards and not to settlement agreements unless they have been made arbitration awards under section 142A. There was no evidence that the settlement agreement in question had been made an arbitration award. Furthermore, the applicant failed to join other affected parties to the application, which is a fatal defect. Even if condonation for late filing were granted, the application would still fail on substantive grounds. The applicant's recourse lies against the union that purported to act on his behalf without authority. The...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 38
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Shortridge; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: A Gevison N.O; Respondent: Jetmaster (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Case Number
JR1551/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Ngalwana
Legal Topics
Review of Settlement Agreement, Arbitration Award, Condonation, Joinder of Parties
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Settlement Agreement Arbitration Award Condonation Joinder of Parties

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Shortridge

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

A Gevison N.O

Respondent

Jetmaster (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review and setting aside of the settlement agreement is properly brought under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement was made an arbitration award susceptible to review under section 145.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had authority to the union to conclude the settlement agreement on his behalf.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application was improperly brought under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, as that section only applies to the review of arbitration awards and not to settlement agreements unless they have been made arbitration awards under section 142A. There was no evidence that the settlement agreement in question had been made an arbitration award. Furthermore, the applicant failed to join other affected parties to the application, which is a fatal defect. Even if condonation for late filing were granted, the application would still fail on substantive grounds. The applicant's recourse lies against the union that purported to act on his behalf without authority. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for the review and setting aside of the settlement agreement under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.