City of Cape Town v Asia Coetzee and Others (C24/2022) [2024] ZALCCT 61 (6 December 2024)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C24/2022
Judge
Daniels
Labour Court dismissed a review of a promotion-related unfair labour practice award, upholding compensation to an employee excluded from the shortlist.
Member Of Executive Council Department of Sport and Recreation Arts and Culture Eastern Cape v Mafunda and Others (PR24/21) [2024] ZALCPE 27 (25 July 2024)
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Case number
PR24/21
Judge
Jessop
The court found that the arbitrator correctly applied the relevant recruitment and selection policies and regulations. The first respondent, as the delegated authority, was entitled to deviate from the selection panel's recommendation provided she recorded her reasons in writing and ensured the candidate was qualified. The applicant failed to establish any breach of policy, regulation, or law, and did not prove that the first respondent acted with mala fides, favouritism, nepotism, or cronyism. The arbitrator's findings that the dismissal was substantively unfair were reasonable and rational,…
Rwayi v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (C291/2022) [2023] ZALCCT 63 (20 November 2023)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C291/2022
Judge
De Villiers-Jansen
The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed review of an unfair labour practice award, finding the appointment process for a municipal post was reasonable and not arbitrary.
Kwadukuza Municipality v Rajamoney and Others (D880/10) [2013] ZALCD 17 (13 June 2013)
Court
Labour Court Durban
Case number
D880/10
Judge
Cele
The court found no defect in the arbitrator's reasoning or findings. The arbitrator correctly determined that the requirements for the advertised post, specifically the EC driver's license, were material and that only candidates meeting all requirements should have been shortlisted. The applicant's failure to follow its own selection criteria rendered the appointment process unfair. The arbitrator's decision to award protective promotion to the first respondent was reasonable, given the time elapsed and the fact that the fourth respondent should not have been shortlisted. The applicant failed…