United National Transport Union v Operating Company (Pty) Ltd (J674/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 43 (14 February 2017)

United National Transport Union v Operating Company (Pty) Ltd (J674/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 43 (14 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant did not expressly plead reliance on a tacit agreement as an alternative contractual basis for its claim. The proposed amendment to paragraph 8 did not set out the basis for a tacit agreement, nor did it allege the existence of such a contract or the facts from which it could be inferred. The amendment merely recorded the established practice for rostering drivers and the proposition that hours in excess of ordinary hours are considered overtime. As such, the amendment was not excipiable as vague and embarrassing or as not disclosing a cause of action. The court accepted the applicant's express disavowal of reliance on a tacit agreement and permitted the...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 43
Parties
Applicant: United National Transport Union; Respondent: Operating Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Case Number
J674/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend the statement of claim granted; no order as to costs; parties directed to hold a pre-trial meeting and file a pre-trial minute by 14 March 2017.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Statement of Claim Amendment, Overtime Payment, Contractual Interpretation, Tacit Agreement Pleading
Labour Law Civil Procedure Statement of Claim Amendment Overtime Payment Contractual Interpretation Tacit Agreement Pleading

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

United National Transport Union

Applicant

Operating Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's proposed amendment to the statement of claim would render the claim vague and embarrassing or fail to disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has pleaded a tacit agreement as an alternative contractual basis for its claim.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment should be permitted despite objections from the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not expressly plead reliance on a tacit agreement as an alternative contractual basis for its claim. The proposed amendment to paragraph 8 did not set out the basis for a tacit agreement, nor did it allege the existence of such a contract or the facts from which it could be inferred. The amendment merely recorded the established practice for rostering drivers and the proposition that hours in excess of ordinary hours are considered overtime. As such, the amendment was not excipiable as vague and embarrassing or as not disclosing a cause of action. The court accepted the applicant's express disavowal of reliance on a tacit agreement and permitted the...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the statement of claim granted; no order as to costs; parties directed to hold a pre-trial meeting and file a pre-trial minute by 14 March 2017.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with its notice of intention to amend dated 17 October 2016.
  • No order is made as to costs.