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
GB Engineering Pty Ltd v Mbongo and Others (JA75 / 2022) [2023] ZALAC 29; [2024] 1 BLLR 14 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 267 (LAC) (18 October 2023)
The Labour Appeal Court held that a settlement agreement concluded through NUMSA barred further dispute, and that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction.
UCIMESHAWU obo Madodekhaya and Others v South Deep Gold Mine, a subsidiary of Gold Fields Limited and Another (JR258/2019) [2021] ZALCJHB 139 (7 July 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed condonation and a review application seeking to set aside a settlement agreement concluded by NUM on behalf of dismissed employees.
A C and C South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a African Camp and Catering v Nkadimeng NO and Others (JR249/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 283 (8 August 2017)
The Labour Court held that a settlement agreement resolving a dismissal dispute was valid and binding, and the review application was withdrawn.
Mhlongo and Others v Food and Allied Workers Union and Another (D1684/2000) [2006] ZALC 94; [2007] 2 BLLR 141 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 397 (LC) (1 November 2006)
The court found that the applicants remained members of the trade union and had not validly terminated their membership or the union's mandate. The union, as a registered trade union, was entitled to act collectively on behalf of its members, and the Settlement Agreement concluded with the employer constituted a Collective Agreement binding on all members, including the applicants. The applicants failed to demonstrate any abuse of the union's powers or prejudice suffered in the settlement process. The argument that the respondents acted in bad faith was rejected, as the union acted within its…
Source excerpt
Fritz v British American Tobacco Company (J2360/00) [2001] ZALC 119 (6 August 2001)
The Labour Court held that the applicant’s trade union validly settled her retrenchment dispute, dismissed the claim, and ordered her to pay 25% of costs.
Explore more
