South Africa Case Law

South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2022/033927)

South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2022/033927) [2024] ZAGPJHC 200; (2024) 45 ILJ 1134 (GJ) (29 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/033927

Judge

Moorcroft

The court found that the municipality's unilateral rescission of the conversion of employees from fixed term to permanent status was impermissible without a court order or agreement. The conversion of employment status was effected in accordance with municipal procedures and was not ultra vires the powers of the municipality. The employees and union were entitled to assume that internal arrangements and formalities had been complied with, and the conversion had legal consequences until set aside by a court. The respondent's decision to rescind the conversion without consultation or judicial i…

Source excerpt

• Unilateral Rescission Of Contract
• Permanent Employment Status
• Consultation Rights
• Municipal Powers
• Rule Of Law

Bakubung Ba Ratheo Traditional Community and Others v Bakubung Community Development Corporation and Others (14349/2017)

Bakubung Ba Ratheo Traditional Community and Others v Bakubung Community Development Corporation and Others (14349/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 520 (2 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14349/2017

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the second and third applicants had not established any authority to represent the first applicant community, as required by the North West Traditional Leadership and Governance Act. The Khuduthamaga resolution was invalid, and the Kgosi had not authorised the proceedings. The applicants, as members of the community, had standing only to protect their own interests, not to act on behalf of the community. The previous North West High Court order was irrelevant to the present matter and did not confer any right to consultation on the applicants. The respondents' uncontradic…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Rule 7 Authority
• Consultation Rights
• Traditional Leadership
• Interim Interdict

Solidarity and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC (Ltd) and Another (J 722/21)

Solidarity and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC (Ltd) and Another (J 722/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 234 (16 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 722/21

Judge

M Baloyi

The court found that Eskom, as a contracting party, is bound by the policies incorporated into its employees' contracts. The evidence showed that Eskom did not sufficiently consult with affected employees as required by its own policies, despite claims of general consultations. The grievance chairperson's findings confirmed that proper one-on-one consultations had not occurred. The establishment of the Relinking Review Committee did not satisfy the policy requirements, as it was designed to hear grievances rather than facilitate the mandated consultations. The applicants made out a case for s…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Urgent Interdict
• Consultation Rights
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Employment Policy Compliance

Communication Workers Union v Mobile Telephone Networks South Africa (MTN SA) (J464/20)

Communication Workers Union v Mobile Telephone Networks South Africa (MTN SA) (J464/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 170 (1 June 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J464/20

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court dismissed the union’s urgent bid to stop MTN’s store transformation, holding that section 197 did not give a general right to consultation or information.

• Section 197 Transfer
• Interim Interdict
• Consultation Rights
• Disclosure Of Information
• Section-197-transfer
• Interim-interdict

BIFAWU obo Mncube and Others v Legalwise Expenses Insurance South Africa t/a Legalwise (J889/17)

BIFAWU obo Mncube and Others v Legalwise Expenses Insurance South Africa t/a Legalwise (J889/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 325 (12 September 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J889/17

Judge

R Lagrange

The Labour Court upheld an exception, finding the union’s statement of case did not disclose a recognised cause of action and dismissed it with costs.

• Exception Procedure
• Cause Of Action
• Consultation Rights
• Organisational Rights
• Protected Strike Action
• Labour-law

National Union of Mineworkers v Ezulwini Mining Co (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2024/2016)

National Union of Mineworkers v Ezulwini Mining Co (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2024/2016) [2016] ZALCJHB 506; [2017] 1 BLLR 47 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 448 (LC) (14 September 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2024/2016

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court held that section 52 of the MPRDA does not bar retrenchments pending its completion, and dismissed the union’s urgent interdict.

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Section 52 Process
• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Consultation Rights
• Statutory Interpretation

Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14)

Ketse v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (P 400/14) [2014] ZALCPE 38; [2015] 4 BLLR 436 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1592 (LC) (5 December 2014)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P 400/14

Judge

Lallie

The court held that the applicant was not a consulting party as envisaged in section 189(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as the employer was required to consult only with trade unions in terms of collective agreements. The applicant's participation in the retrenchment process was passive and did not amount to consultation. Consequently, he lacked locus standi to bring the application under section 189A(13). The court further found that the matter was not res judicata, as the parties and relief sought differed from the prior proceedings involving Solidarity. The facilitation process was lawful…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Collective Agreements
• Consultation Rights
• Locus Standi
• Facilitation Process

Health and Other Services Personnel Trade Union of SA (HOSPERSA) and Others v Member of the Executive Council Health, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (D919/11)

Health and Other Services Personnel Trade Union of SA (HOSPERSA) and Others v Member of the Executive Council Health, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (D919/11) [2011] ZALCD 6 (28 October 2011)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D919/11

Judge

Boqwana

The Labour Court struck an urgent interdict application off the roll, holding the dispute was premature, urgency was not shown, and bargaining council remedies remained available.

• Urgent Interdict
• Demotion
• Collective Bargaining
• Consultation Rights
• Alternative Remedy
• Urgent-interdict

Nutesa v Central University of Technology, Free State (JR 2043/08)

Nutesa v Central University of Technology, Free State (JR 2043/08) [2008] ZALC 146; [2009] 4 BLLR 369 (LC) ; (2009) 30 ILJ 1620 (LC) (19 November 2008)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR 2043/08

Judge

Molahlehi

The court held that the respondent's decision regarding the restructuring of peromnes levels 4 to 7 was not administrative action as envisaged by section 33 of the Constitution or section 1 of PAJA, but rather an employment-related decision governed by the Labour Relations Act. The applicant's rights to consultation and collective bargaining arise from the LRF constitution and the relationship agreement, both of which fall within the framework of the LRA. The applicant failed to demonstrate a clear right to an interim interdict, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured gr…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Collective Bargaining
• Administrative Action
• Consultation Rights
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Employment Restructuring

SACCAWU and Others v Western Province Sports Club t/a Kelvin Grove Club and Others (C121/08)

SACCAWU and Others v Western Province Sports Club t/a Kelvin Grove Club and Others (C121/08) [2008] ZALCCT 2 (18 April 2008)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C121/08

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court held that section 197 of the LRA does not give employees a right to consultation before a going-concern transfer and dismissed the urgent interdict.

• Section 197 Transfer
• Consultation Rights
• Urgent Interdict
• Constitutional Right To Fair Labour Practice
• Section-197-transfer
• Consultation-rights