South African Revenue Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D 426/07) [2009] ZALC 249 (27 March 2009)

South African Revenue Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D 426/07) [2009] ZALC 249 (27 March 2009)

The court found that all four employees were typists on 1 January 1999 and subsequently moved to new positions. According to the Hay Grading Process, all should have been placed on the minimum salary band, but the applicant placed Ms Gouws and Ms Moodley on the midpoint, creating an unfair disparity. The applicant failed to provide a rational and consistent explanation for this differential treatment and acted inconsistently. The arbitrator's decision to order retrospective placement and payment for the fourth and fifth respondents was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not establish any defect in the arbitration proceedings as contemplated by section 145 of the...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 249
Parties
Applicant: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mathe Nhlanhla N.O.; Respondent: Bess Pillemer N.O.; Respondent: E.A. Janse Van Rensburg; Respondent: Chanelle Oosthuizen
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Case Number
D 426/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award and Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the jurisdictional ruling and arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion Dispute, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Salary Differentiation, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Dispute Collective Bargaining Agreement Salary Differentiation Review of Arbitration 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Revenue Services

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mathe Nhlanhla N.O.

Respondent

Bess Pillemer N.O.

Respondent

E.A. Janse Van Rensburg

Respondent

Chanelle Oosthuizen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award and Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's differentiation in salary placement constituted an unfair labour practice.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's award was reviewable under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all four employees were typists on 1 January 1999 and subsequently moved to new positions. According to the Hay Grading Process, all should have been placed on the minimum salary band, but the applicant placed Ms Gouws and Ms Moodley on the midpoint, creating an unfair disparity. The applicant failed to provide a rational and consistent explanation for this differential treatment and acted inconsistently. The arbitrator's decision to order retrospective placement and payment for the fourth and fifth respondents was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not establish any defect in the arbitration proceedings as contemplated by section 145 of the...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the jurisdictional ruling and arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the jurisdictional ruling dated 24 March 2007 and the arbitration award dated 21 June 2007 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.