Snyman and Another v Department of Human Settlement and Another (J 459/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 73 (1 June 2021)

Snyman and Another v Department of Human Settlement and Another (J 459/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 73 (1 June 2021)

The court found that the application was not urgent and constituted an abuse of the Labour Court's process. The disciplinary process against Snyman had been concluded in September 2018, and its outcome implemented as far back as July 2019. The applicants failed to challenge the outcome timeously and instead attempted to negotiate their way out of the consequences. The urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, arising only when the Department threatened to invoke deemed dismissal provisions. The court held that there was no basis for urgent intervention or for the relief sought, and dismissed the application with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 73
Parties
Applicant: Michele Deanne Snyman; Applicant: Solidarity; Respondent: Department of Human Settlements; Respondent: Director General: Department of Human Settlements
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2021
Case Number
J 459/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before Labour Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedure, Unfair Labour Practice, Urgent Interdict, Demotion, Suspension Without Pay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Urgent Interdict Demotion Suspension Without Pay

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Deanne Snyman

Applicant

Solidarity

Applicant

Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

Director General: Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and deserving of the Labour Court's immediate attention.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary process and its outcome against Snyman were unlawful due to lack of consent for demotion and suspension without pay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to have the disciplinary outcome set aside and Snyman reinstated to her original position.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not urgent and constituted an abuse of the Labour Court's process. The disciplinary process against Snyman had been concluded in September 2018, and its outcome implemented as far back as July 2019. The applicants failed to challenge the outcome timeously and instead attempted to negotiate their way out of the consequences. The urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, arising only when the Department threatened to invoke deemed dismissal provisions. The court held that there was no basis for urgent intervention or for the relief sought, and dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' urgent application is dismissed with costs.