South Africa Case Law

Mashaba v University of Johannesburg and Others (JA 140/2021)

Mashaba v University of Johannesburg and Others (JA 140/2021) [2022] ZALAC 116; (2023) 44 ILJ 156 (LAC); [2023] 2 BLLR 119 (LAC) (18 October 2022)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 140/2021

Judges

Waglay, Coppin, Tokota

The court held that the appellant was not unfairly excluded from the shortlist for promotion, as his CV did not meet the experiential requirements set out in the advertisement. The employer's discretion in promotion decisions is protected unless exercised capriciously, with malice, or fraud, none of which was demonstrated. The alleged conflict of interest by Dr Manon was unfounded, as mere knowledge of a candidate does not constitute a disqualifying conflict, and all panel members declared their familiarity with the candidates. The relief of compensation was not sought in earlier proceedings…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion
• Conflict Of Interest
• Shortlisting
• Compensation
• Employer Discretion

Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (PA3/18)

Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (PA3/18) [2020] ZALCPE 2; [2020] 4 BLLR 353 (LC) (6 January 2020)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PA3/18

Judges

JR Murphy, DM Davis, R Sutherland

The Labour Court upheld an award finding an unfair labour practice where the Department failed to promote a long-serving acting incumbent to a vacant post.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion
• Arbitration Review
• Employer Discretion
• Remedies For Unfair Labour Practice
• Unfair-labour-practice

Maile v FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd (JR1148/2014)

Maile v FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd (JR1148/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 71 (2 April 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1148/2014

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed a review of an award rejecting an unfair labour practice claim over a scarcity allowance, finding the outcome reasonable.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Benefits
• Employer Discretion
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Condonation
• Remuneration

Solidarity obo Oelofse v Armscor (SOC) Ltd and Others (JR2004/15)

Solidarity obo Oelofse v Armscor (SOC) Ltd and Others (JR2004/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 87 (21 February 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2004/15

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court found that the employer's refusal to pay the performance bonus to the applicant did not constitute an unfair labour practice. The bonus was a discretionary benefit, and the employer's decision was based on serious misconduct and breach of organizational values, which was a relevant and fair consideration under the applicable policies. The discretion was exercised fairly, without arbitrariness or caprice, and the applicant failed to establish inconsistency or double jeopardy. The arbitrator's award was reasonable and sustainable, and the review application was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Performance Bonus
• Employer Discretion
• Double Jeopardy
• Inconsistency
• Review Test

Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (DA1/11)

Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (DA1/11) [2013] ZALAC 3; [2013] 5 BLLR 434 (LAC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1120 (LAC) (21 February 2013)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA1/11

Judges

Musi AJA, Patel JA, Hlophe AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the concept of 'benefit' in section 186(2)(a) of the LRA is not confined to entitlements arising solely from contract or statute. It extends to advantages or privileges granted to employees under employer policies or practices, even where the employer retains discretion. The Court found that the appellant's early retirement scheme constituted a 'benefit' as contemplated by the LRA, and that the employer's discretion in granting access to the scheme must be exercised fairly. In this case, the appellant shifted eligibility criteria, provided inconsistent reason…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Benefits Under Lra
• Employer Discretion
• Early Retirement Scheme
• Remedies For Unfairness

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Rustenburg Section) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (598/05)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Rustenburg Section) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (598/05) [2006] ZASCA 175; [2007] 1 All SA 164 (SCA); 2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA); [2006] 11 BLLR 1021 (SCA); (2006) 27 ILJ 2076 (SCA) (26 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

598/05

Judges

Harms JA, Cameron JA, Cloete JA, Lewis JA, Maya JA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the CCMA commissioner’s decision to reinstate the employee was not rationally connected to the information before him or the reasons given, as the decision was substantially influenced by bad reasons, including the absence of proven losses, the employee’s alleged mistake, and lack of dishonesty. The commissioner failed to appreciate the gravity of the misconduct and the breach of trust inherent in the employee’s failure to perform his core duties. The proper test for review is whether there is a rational objective basis justifying the connection between t…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Misconduct
• Ccma Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Code Of Good Practice
• Rationality Review
• Employer Discretion