South Africa Case Law

Lesiba v Regional Head: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (Mpumalanga Province) and Another (J2262/17)

Lesiba v Regional Head: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (Mpumalanga Province) and Another (J2262/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 365 (4 October 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2262/17

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court refused to intervene in the applicant's incomplete internal disciplinary hearing, holding that such intervention is reserved for the most exceptional circumstances. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional basis for urgent intervention, and the jurisdiction to address procedural or substantive issues in workplace discipline resides with an arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act. The court found that s 16B(4) of the Public Service Act does not apply to transfers between regional offices within a national department, and the disciplinary process was properly insti…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Hearing Interdict
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Public Service Act Interpretation
• Internal Remedies
• Urgent Application Requirements

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Thomas (CCT168/14)

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Thomas (CCT168/14) [2015] ZACC 26; 2016 (1) SA 103 (CC); (2015) 36 ILJ 2751 (CC); 2015 (10) BCLR 1172 (CC) (25 August 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 168/14

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Molemela, Nkabinde, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that, for purposes of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the employer is the appointing authority within the relevant sphere of government, not the State as a single entity. The Act's definition of 'employer' and related provisions, including sections 39(2) and 84(1), indicate that the heads of departments in national and provincial government are individually liable as employers. The Court found that the Minister's interpretation, which would treat the State as a single employer and preclude Dr Thomas's claim for workplace damages, is n…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries Act
• Definition Of Employer
• Bodily Integrity
• Workplace Damages
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Public Service Act Interpretation

South African Democratic Teachers Union v Gauteng Department of Education (J916/2011)

South African Democratic Teachers Union v Gauteng Department of Education (J916/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 222 (21 June 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J916/2011

Judge

Van Voore

The Labour Court struck an urgent application to stop Mr Ndevu’s transfer, finding no clear right to final relief and no urgency.

• Transfer Of Employees
• Urgency
• Right To Be Heard
• Public Service Act Interpretation
• Urgent-application
• Employee-transfer

Member of the Executive Council for Transport: Kwazulu-Natal and Others v Jele (DA6/03)

Member of the Executive Council for Transport: Kwazulu-Natal and Others v Jele (DA6/03) [2004] ZALAC 13; [2004] 12 BLLR 1238 (LAC); (2004) 25 ILJ 2179 (LAC) (9 July 2004)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA6/03

Judges

Zondo JP, Willis JA, Davis AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the respondent's employer, for purposes of item 2(1)(b) of Schedule 7 to the Labour Relations Act, was the State. The Court found that the respondent, employed in a provincial government department, remained an employee of the State regardless of departmental transfer or promotion. The statutory and constitutional framework, including the Labour Relations Act, Public Service Act, and Public Service Labour Relations Act, consistently define the State as the employer of public service employees. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that provincial depart…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion In Public Service
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Definition Of Employer
• Public Service Act Interpretation