South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v City of Johannesburg (J 325/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 50 (11 April 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 50
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- J 325/13
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- J 325/13
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the collective agreement applicable to the affected employees expressly allowed the general manager to determine shift times, making any change to shift times a permissible work practice rather than a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment. The distinction between a work practice and a term and condition of employment was confirmed by the Labour Appeal Court. Furthermore, the respondent's conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a lockout, as recently confirmed in analogous circumstances. The applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success for an appeal, and leave to appeal was therefore refused.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
South African Municipal Workers Union and 27 Others
ApplicantCity of Johannesburg
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Application Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to a lockout under the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for an appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the respondent's alteration of shift times amounted to a unilateral change to their terms and conditions of employment, contrary to the collective agreement. They further contended that the respondent's conduct constituted a lockout as defined in the Labour Relations Act, and that the court's factual findings were incorrect, warranting leave to appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the collective agreement expressly permitted the general manager to determine shift times, and that such changes were a work practice rather than a change to terms and conditions of employment. The respondent denied that its conduct constituted a lockout, relying on recent case law and the express terms of the agreement.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act
Leave to appeal is granted only if there are reasonable prospects of success.
- 02
Motor Industry Staff Association v Silverton Spray painters and Panel beaters (Pty) Ltd (JA 5/2011, 31 December 2012)
A change in shift times, where permitted by the collective agreement, constitutes a change in work practice and not a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment.
- 03
SATAWU v Bid Air Services (PTY) Ltd (J 394/13, 7 March 2013)
The definition of 'lockout' does not extend to the respondent's conduct in these circumstances.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the collective agreement applicable to the affected employees expressly allowed the general manager to determine shift times, making any change to shift times a permissible work practice rather than a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment. The distinction between a work practice and a term and condition of employment was confirmed by the Labour Appeal Court. Furthermore, the respondent's conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a lockout, as recently confirmed in analogous circumstances. The applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success for an appeal, and leave to appeal was therefore refused.
Obiter and limits
- Recent jurisprudence supports the view that changes to shift patterns, where contemplated by agreement, do not constitute unilateral changes to employment terms.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Ruling
1
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
CASE NO: J 325/13
In the matter between:
SOUTH
AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION
AMD 27 OTHERS ....................................................................................................APPLICANT
and
CITY
OF JOHANNESBURG ................................................................................RESPONDENT
Date of ruling: 11 April 2013 (in Chambers)
RULING: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment delivered by the court on 25 February 2013, after hearing an urgent application on 22 February. The facts that are material to the dispute between the parties are recorded in the judgment, and I do not intend to repeat them here.
[2] The test to be applied is well-established – leave is granted if there are reasonable prospects of success.
[3] In so far as the grounds of leave to appeal attack factual findings made by the court, the court found that the collective agreement that applied on transfer of the affected employees allows for a discretion to change shifts. Clause 11.2 of the 2006 Conditions of Service pertaining to shift work expressly permits the general manager to determine shift times. That being so, in line with the applicable authorities a change to shift times does not in these circumstances amount to a change to terms and conditions of employment. The distinction between a work practice and a term and condition of employment was recently confirmed by the LAC in Motor Industry Staff Association v Silverton Spray painters and Panel beaters (Pty) Ltd (case no JA 5/2011, 31 December 2012), where a change in the manner in which a job is to be performed was clearly classified as a change to a work practice. This is consistent with the long-standing jurisprudence in this court to the effect that a change in shift patterns does not amount to a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment not least where the change and the right to effect change is specifically contemplated by those terms.
[4] The definition of ‘lockout’ does not extend to the conduct of the respondent in the present instance, a principle acknowledged and applied in identical circumstances more recently by Steenkamp J in SATAWU v Bid Air Services (PTY) Ltd (case no J 394/13, 7 March 2013).
[5] I am not persuaded that the applicant has established reasonable prospects of success in any appeal to the LAC, and for that reason, the application stands to be dismissed.
I make the following order:
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
Andrè van Niekerk
Judge of the Labour Court
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.