Van Rensburg and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (J2231/08, J2188/08, J2232/08) [2008] ZALC 148; [2009] 4 BLLR 400 (LC) (28 November 2008)

Van Rensburg and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (J2231/08, J2188/08, J2232/08) [2008] ZALC 148; [2009] 4 BLLR 400 (LC) (28 November 2008)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as they were aware of the respondent's intention to suspend salary payments before approaching the court. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear or prima facie right to continued salary and benefits, as their absence from duty was not authorised by the employer under Resolution 7 of 2000. Payment of salary during absence for occupational injury or disease is discretionary and requires employer approval, which was not granted in these cases. The applicants had alternative remedies available through the bargaining council, and delay in those procedures did not justify urgent relief. Consequently, the applications for...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 148
Parties
Applicant: Janse van Rensburg; Applicant: Daniel Joshua Pienaar; Applicant: Christoffel Barnard; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Case Number
J2231/08, J2188/08, J2232/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs awarded against each applicant.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Occupational Injury Leave, Temporary Incapacity Leave, Urgent Interdict, Resolution 7 of 2000, Prima Facie Right
Labour Law Civil Procedure Occupational Injury Leave Temporary Incapacity Leave Urgent Interdict Resolution 7 of 2000 Prima Facie Right

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janse van Rensburg

Applicant

Daniel Joshua Pienaar

Applicant

Christoffel Barnard

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to continued payment of salaries and medical aid benefits pending finalisation of their disputes.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established urgency justifying interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have a clear or prima facie right to the relief sought under Resolution 7 of 2000 of the PSCBC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as they were aware of the respondent's intention to suspend salary payments before approaching the court. The applicants did not demonstrate a clear or prima facie right to continued salary and benefits, as their absence from duty was not authorised by the employer under Resolution 7 of 2000. Payment of salary during absence for occupational injury or disease is discretionary and requires employer approval, which was not granted in these cases. The applicants had alternative remedies available through the bargaining council, and delay in those procedures did not justify urgent relief. Consequently, the applications for...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs awarded against each applicant.

Orders

  • Each application is dismissed.
  • Each applicant is to pay the respondent's costs for their respective applications.