South Africa Case Law

S.M v Specti Vision Trading CC (JS334/2021)

S.M v Specti Vision Trading CC (JS334/2021) [2024] ZALCJHB 506; [2025] 3 BLLR 291 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1188 (LC) (17 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS334/2021

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The applicant failed to present a credible, probable, or reliable version of sexual harassment. The respondent took reasonable steps by suspending and disciplining the accused employees, and the applicant ultimately conceded that disciplinary action and apologies occurred. The evidence did not support a finding of unfair discrimination or liability under section 60 of the EEA. The main, dominant, and proximate reason for the applicant's dismissal was misconduct, not the exercise of rights or referral to the CCMA. The applicant did not discharge the evidential burden to establish an automatica…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Sexual Harassment
• Unfair Discrimination
• Section 60 Employment Equity Act
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Ccma Referral

Magazi and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd - Application For Leave To Appeal (JS696/19)

Magazi and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd - Application For Leave To Appeal (JS696/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 252 (21 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS696/19

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal over a dismissed retrieval application, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no basis to revisit jurisdiction.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Delay In Prosecution
• Leave To Appeal
• Practice Manual
• Ccma Referral

Tloubatla v Thabazimbi Municipality and Another (J 1146/2022)

Tloubatla v Thabazimbi Municipality and Another (J 1146/2022) [2022] ZALCJHB 257 (22 September 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1146/2022

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to interim reinstatement. The Labour Relations Act provides an adequate alternative remedy through the CCMA, which the applicant has already invoked. The disciplinary process, while challenged by the applicant, does not present exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention. The requirements for interim relief were not met, as the applicant's harm is not irreparable and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the order. The application was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Interim Relief
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Ccma Referral

Baloyi and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (J158/21)

Baloyi and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (J158/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 26 (3 March 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J158/21

Judge

Mahosi

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created. The applicants became aware of the advertisement for the security personnel posts on 13 November 2020 and sought an undertaking from the first respondent before 19 November 2020. When the undertaking was not furnished, instead of bringing an urgent application, they engaged in further attempts to resolve the matter internally, resulting in a delay of more than two months before launching the application. The court held that the reasons for the delay were not reasonable, especially as the applicants were legally repre…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Self Created Urgency
• Strike Off Roll
• Ccma Referral
• Employment Status

Matona v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (J602/15)

Matona v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (J602/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 125 (27 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J602/15

Judge

Whitcher

Urgent application to uplift a full-pay suspension was struck from the roll after the court found an adequate CCMA remedy and no irreparable harm.

• Unfair Suspension
• Urgent Interdict
• Ccma Referral
• Procedural Fairness
• Prima Facie Right
• Unfair-suspension

De Klerk v Project Freight Group CC (C647/2014)

De Klerk v Project Freight Group CC (C647/2014) [2014] ZALCCT 44; (2015) 36 ILJ 716 (LC) (14 August 2014)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C647/2014

Judge

Steenkamp

The court found that the applicant had a clear right to meaningful consultation and access to relevant information under section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act. The employer's refusal to provide the requested information and to undertake not to implement the dismissal pending the CCMA referral constituted an injury actually committed. The applicant had followed the prescribed statutory route by referring the dispute to the CCMA, and the absence of an alternative remedy justified the granting of interim relief. The court interpreted section 16, read with section 189(4), as applying to indi…

Source excerpt

• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Disclosure Of Information
• Urgent Interdict
• Consultation Process
• Section 189 Lra
• Ccma Referral

Netshiavha v Camelot Body Corporate and Another (J 1457/11)

Netshiavha v Camelot Body Corporate and Another (J 1457/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 318 (5 December 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1457/11

Judge

Woodhouse

The Labour Court dismissed an application to join a second respondent, finding no cause of action before it and no basis for joinder or jurisdiction.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Jurisdiction
• Cause Of Action
• Ccma Referral
• Joinder-of-parties
• Cause-of-action

Du Randt v Ultramat South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (C 376/2012)

Du Randt v Ultramat South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (C 376/2012) [2013] ZALCCT 2; [2013] 6 BLLR 573 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2228 (LC) (15 February 2013)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 376/2012

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court dismissed an employee’s bid to restore home-office terms, holding he had an alternative CCMA remedy for an alleged unfair labour practice.

• Unilateral Change To Terms And Conditions
• Demotion
• Specific Performance
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Ccma Referral
• Strike Action

Bopape v University of South Africa and Another (J2353/08)

Bopape v University of South Africa and Another (J2353/08) [2008] ZALC 219 (17 November 2008)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J2353/08

Judge

Ngalwana

The Labour Court held that the applicant had prematurely approached the court without first exhausting remedies available through the CCMA, as required by the Labour Relations Act. The court found that the second respondent did have discretion to allow outside representation, but the applicant should have sought relief through the CCMA, which is the appropriate forum for unfair labour practice disputes. The court declined to rule on the constitutionality or reasonableness of the policy clauses, as the matter could be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. The application was dismissed…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Legal Representation
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Internal Policies
• Ccma Referral

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99)

Construction and Allied Workers Union and Others v Modern Concrete Works (J2236/99) [1999] ZALC 92 (8 June 1999)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J2236/99

Judge

Marcus

The court found that the respondent's lockout was not protected under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act. The lockout was in response to a go slow rather than the wage dispute referred to the CCMA, and the notice of lockout failed to specify the commencement date, rendering it defective. The requirements for a protected lockout were not met, as the statutory procedures for referral and notice were not properly followed. The applicants established a basis for interdictory relief, but their claim for payment of wages was abandoned due to lack of evidence regarding the duration of the lockou…

Source excerpt

• Protected Lockout
• Section 64 Requirements
• Notice Of Lockout
• Ccma Referral