Sigwali and Others v Libanon ado Kloof Gold Mine Ltd (J3137/98) [1999] ZALC 155 (7 October 1999)

Sigwali and Others v Libanon ado Kloof Gold Mine Ltd (J3137/98) [1999] ZALC 155 (7 October 1999)

The court held that the collective agreement between the respondent and NUM, as the majority union, was binding on all employees identified therein, including non-members, in terms of section 23(1)(d) of the LRA. The agreement amended the retirement age and constituted a valid alternative to retrenchment, obviating the need for individual consultation under section 189. The court further found that the first applicant did not have locus standi to represent further applicants, as only unions, legal practitioners, or properly cited individuals may refer disputes to the Labour Court. Confirmatory affidavits do not cure defects in referral or representation. Consequently, only those...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 155
Parties
Applicant: Delihlazo Sigwali & Others; Respondent: Libanon ado Kloof Gold Mine Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 October 1999
Case Number
J3137/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Both points in limine upheld; only properly referred applicants are before the court; application dismissed for remaining applicants.
Judges
Ngwenya
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Locus Standi, Retrenchment, Section 189 Consultation, Trade Union Representation
Labour Law Collective Agreements Locus Standi Retrenchment Section 189 Consultation Trade Union Representation

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delihlazo Sigwali & Others

Applicant

Libanon ado Kloof Gold Mine Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collective agreement between the respondent and NUM binds non-union members to amended retirement terms.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to consult individual applicants prior to retrenchment under section 189 of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the first applicant had locus standi to represent further applicants in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the collective agreement between the respondent and NUM, as the majority union, was binding on all employees identified therein, including non-members, in terms of section 23(1)(d) of the LRA. The agreement amended the retirement age and constituted a valid alternative to retrenchment, obviating the need for individual consultation under section 189. The court further found that the first applicant did not have locus standi to represent further applicants, as only unions, legal practitioners, or properly cited individuals may refer disputes to the Labour Court. Confirmatory affidavits do not cure defects in referral or representation. Consequently, only those...

Court Disposition

Both points in limine upheld; only properly referred applicants are before the court; application dismissed for remaining applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed in respect of all applicants except those who personally referred the dispute to the Labour Court.
  • Costs are reserved for determination at trial.