Strydom v Arcelormittal South Africa (J 1764/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 345; (2024) 45 ILJ 931 (LC) (27 December 2023)

Strydom v Arcelormittal South Africa (J 1764/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 345; (2024) 45 ILJ 931 (LC) (27 December 2023)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's claim of unlawful suspension without pay, as the dispute is properly characterised as an unfair labour practice under section 186(2) of the LRA and must be resolved by arbitration at the MEIBC. The applicant failed to identify any provision of the LRA or other law conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Court to determine the lawfulness of his suspension. The court found that mere allegations of unlawfulness do not clothe it with jurisdiction where the substance of the dispute is unfairness, and the applicant had already referred the dispute to the MEIBC. The application was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction. Given...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 345
Parties
Applicant: Mark Strydom; Respondent: Arcelormittal South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 December 2023
Case Number
J 1764/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Declare Suspension Without Pay Unlawful; Opposed on Jurisdictional Grounds
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction; partial costs order against applicant.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Unfair Suspension, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Urgent Interdict, Disciplinary Procedure, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Suspension Jurisdiction of Labour Court Urgent Interdict Disciplinary Procedure Costs Award

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Strydom

Applicant

Arcelormittal South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Declare Suspension Without Pay Unlawful; Opposed on Jurisdictional Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim of unlawful suspension without pay?
  2. 2 Is the applicant's suspension without pay lawful under the LRA or any other applicable law?
  3. 3 Should costs be awarded against the applicant for bringing an urgent application when the dispute is pending before the MEIBC?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's claim of unlawful suspension without pay, as the dispute is properly characterised as an unfair labour practice under section 186(2) of the LRA and must be resolved by arbitration at the MEIBC. The applicant failed to identify any provision of the LRA or other law conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Court to determine the lawfulness of his suspension. The court found that mere allegations of unlawfulness do not clothe it with jurisdiction where the substance of the dispute is unfairness, and the applicant had already referred the dispute to the MEIBC. The application was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction. Given...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction; partial costs order against applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs, limited to 20% of the taxed costs.