Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mazibuko and Others v JJF Construction CC and Others (JS1016/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 225 (13 June 2017)
The Labour Court upheld exceptions to a vague statement of claim, but allowed the unrepresented applicants time to amend after the respondents provide relevant employment documents.
Tobias v Renasa Insurance Company Limited (JS267/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 232 (30 July 2015)
The court found that the applicant did not make a protected disclosure as defined by the Protected Disclosures Act. The letter relied upon by the applicant contained only speculative concerns and lacked specific information showing a failure to comply with legal obligations. As a result, the claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act could not succeed. The court exercised its discretion under section 158(2) of the Labour Relations Act to refer the dispute regarding the fairness of the dismissal to the CCMA for arbitration, as this would be mor…
Source excerpt
Sanlam Life Insurance v Commission for Conciliation Meditation And Arbitration and Others (C417/2013) [2014] ZALCCT 9 (3 April 2014)
The court found that the commissioner erred in concluding that the third respondent was demoted. The evidence showed that the letter of 7 November 2012 constituted an offer of alternative employment, not a unilateral demotion. The third respondent did not accept the offer and made a counter proposal, which was rejected, leading to his retrenchment. The commissioner’s finding was not supported by the facts and was unreasonable. The jurisdictional prerequisite for an unfair labour practice based on demotion was not met, and the award was reviewed and set aside. The applicant’s claim was dismiss…
Source excerpt
Mafikeng Local Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 668/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 157 (8 July 2011)
The court found that no employment relationship existed between the claimants and the municipality, as the suspensive condition of approval by the Municipal Manager was never fulfilled. Without an employment relationship, neither unfair labour practice nor dismissal could occur. The arbitrator misconceived the nature of the dispute and failed to apply his mind to the jurisdictional facts. The arbitration award was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable and was reviewable on both process and result-based grounds. The court substituted the award, dismissing the claimants' claims.
Source excerpt
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J1404/06) [2006] ZALC 87; [2007] 5 BLLR 473 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2681 (LC) (15 September 2006)
The Labour Court set aside CCMA picketing rules after finding the commissioner had not first established that Shoprite’s refusal to allow in-store picketing was unreasonable.
Sachal & Stevens (Pty) Ltd v Carolus and Others (C 34/2003) [2004] ZALC 86 (24 November 2004)
The Labour Court held that the award was against Sachal Polyships, not the applicant, and set aside the certification and execution against the applicant.
Myburg and Others v Autonet (Passenger Services) and Another (C428/00) [2002] ZALC 75 (12 September 2002)
The Labour Court dismissed an application to amend pleadings and for condonation of a late reply, holding the new cause had not been conciliated and the delay was inadequately explained.
Geyser v MEC for Transport Kwazulu-Natal (D1210/2000) [2000] ZALC 149; (2001) 22 ILJ 440 (LC) (14 November 2000)
Labour Court review of a public-service transfer was dismissed after the court found notice defects did not defeat jurisdiction and a hearing had effectively occurred.
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J2399/99) [2000] ZALC 7 (29 February 2000)
The Labour Court reviewed and amended a CCMA certificate that wrongly described a dispute as a matter of mutual interest instead of a collective-agreement interpretation dispute.
Explore more
