South Africa Case Law

National Union of Metal Workers Of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Its Members v MIS Engineering (Pty) Ltd t/a MITAK and Others (JR 2841/2019; JR 2743/2019; JR 1026/2021)

National Union of Metal Workers Of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Its Members v MIS Engineering (Pty) Ltd t/a MITAK and Others (JR 2841/2019; JR 2743/2019; JR 1026/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 148; (2022) 43 ILJ 2075 (LC) (4 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 2841/2019; JR 2743/2019; JR 1026/2021

Judge

Van Niekerk

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Labour Court found no realistic prospect of success on the jurisdictional issues before the MEIBC panelists.

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Conciliation Procedure
• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Leave-to-appeal
• Bargaining-council-jurisdiction

Motlhoioa v Council for Scientific Research and Industrial Research (JS614/20)

Motlhoioa v Council for Scientific Research and Industrial Research (JS614/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 340 (6 October 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS614/20

Judge

Sass

The Labour Court does not lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair discrimination dispute, even though only an unfair labour practice dispute was referred to the CCMA, as the substance of the dispute conciliated is determinative. The Court cannot presently determine whether it has jurisdiction over the automatically unfair dismissal dispute due to lack of evidence regarding what was conciliated, but this issue may be resolved at trial through evidence, including testimony from the CCMA commissioner. The referral of the dispute to the CCMA was not premature, as the alleged dismissal had occu…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Unfair Discrimination
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Conciliation Procedure
• Age Discrimination

TASWU obo Legodi and Others v Van Kerken NO and Others (JR2881/17)

TASWU obo Legodi and Others v Van Kerken NO and Others (JR2881/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 262; (2021) 42 ILJ 195 (LC) (20 August 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2881/17

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that the bargaining council's jurisdiction is determined by the subject matter of the dispute, not by the personal attendance of the employees at conciliation. The panellist's conclusion that failure to appear in person deprived the council of jurisdiction was incorrect and must be set aside. However, the court agreed that the referral was deficient due to the lack of identification of the individual employees and insufficient detail regarding the nature of the dispute. This deficiency rendered the dispute incapable of conciliation, and the panellist was correct to refuse to en…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Conciliation Procedure
• Identification Of Parties
• Unfair Dismissal
• Section 189 Consultation

Public Servants Association and Others v Department of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015)

Public Servants Association and Others v Department of Home Affairs and Others (JR657/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 102 (15 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR657/2015

Judge

Myburgh

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal after confirming that a dispute over working hours was a matter of mutual interest and that the bargaining council had jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Conciliation Procedure
• Labour-law
• Bargaining-council-jurisdiction
• Mutual-interest-dispute

Siemens Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2672/08)

Siemens Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2672/08) [2011] ZALCJHB 111; (2012) 33 ILJ 1476 (LC) (8 December 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 2672/08

Judge

K M Savage

The Labour Court dismissed a review of a CCMA certificate of outcome, holding that no employment relationship existed between Siemens and the fourth respondent.

• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Employment Relationship
• Unfair Dismissal
• Conciliation Procedure
• Ccma-jurisdiction
• Employment-relationship

Mogano v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2585/10)

Mogano v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2585/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 62 (20 July 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2585/10

Judge

Moletsane AJ

The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed review seeking to set aside a CCMA settlement agreement, finding the affidavit incomplete and the grounds insufficiently substantiated.

• Review Of Settlement Agreement
• Unfair Dismissal
• Conciliation Procedure
• Certificate Of Settlement
• Labour-law
• Ccma

Plastics Convertors Association of South Africa v Association of Electric Cable Manufacturers of South Africa and Others (J1212/11)

Plastics Convertors Association of South Africa v Association of Electric Cable Manufacturers of South Africa and Others (J1212/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 59; [2011] 11 BLLR 1095 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 3007 (LC) (18 July 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1212/11

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the applicant was not a party to the dispute before the MEIBC and therefore did not need to be involved in the conciliation process. The MEIBC was not required by its Constitution or section 64(3) of the LRA to convene a conciliation meeting with the applicant. The unions complied with section 64(1) of the LRA by referring the dispute to the Council and obtaining a certificate of non-resolution. Employees of non-party employers, including those of the applicant, are entitled to participate in protected strike action once the dispute has been dealt with by the Council. Not…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Bargaining Council Jurisdiction
• Conciliation Procedure
• Strike Notice Requirements
• Majoritarian Principle

Unitrans Fuel and Chemical (Pty) Ltd v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another (J 1633/10)

Unitrans Fuel and Chemical (Pty) Ltd v Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Another (J 1633/10) [2010] ZALC 295 (8 September 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J 1633/10

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop a strike, holding the union had met the Labour Relations Act’s procedural requirements and the disputes were strikeable.

• Protected Strike Action
• Unilateral Change Of Terms
• Conciliation Procedure
• Waiver Of Rights
• Protected-strike-action
• Labour-relations-act

Digistics (Pty) Ltd v Couth African Transport And Allied Workers Union and Others (J1316/10)

Digistics (Pty) Ltd v Couth African Transport And Allied Workers Union and Others (J1316/10) [2010] ZALCJHB 352 (4 July 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1316/10

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court held that the absence of a certificate of outcome from the commissioner does not render the strike unprotected, as section 64(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act provides that the procedural requirements for protected strike action are met once 30 days have elapsed from the date of referral, regardless of whether a certificate has been issued. The court distinguished between disputes concerning organisational rights and those relating to refusal to bargain, finding that only the latter require an advisory award before a strike may be called. The demand for the inclusion of supervisors…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Refusal To Bargain
• Organisational Rights
• Advisory Award
• Conciliation Procedure

Road Accident Fund v South African Transport And Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) obo Members and Others (J750/10)

Road Accident Fund v South African Transport And Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) obo Members and Others (J750/10) [2010] ZALCJHB 334 (13 April 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J750/10

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the requirements of section 64(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act were satisfied, as the dispute was properly referred to the CCMA and either a certificate of outcome was issued or the statutory period had elapsed. The appointment of the conciliating commissioner was not irregular, as any duly appointed commissioner may perform the function. The dispute was suspended, not withdrawn, and was validly resuscitated by the respondent. The demands in the strike notice were consistent with those in the original referral, focusing on the protection of employment conditions. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Strike Action
• Conciliation Procedure
• Certificate Of Outcome
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Section 64 Lra
• Section 135 Lra