Tinstwalo and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (17268/2024)
Tinstwalo and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (17268/2024) [2025] ZALCJHB 117 (10 March 2025)
The court found that urgency arose only when the respondent re-advertised the posts on 29 January 2025, not when the applicants initially threatened urgent proceedings. The delay was condoned as the applicants reasonably believed the respondent would not proceed with recruitment. The respondent's undertaking, made by a senior executive, was valid and binding, given in good faith to prevent prejudice while the dispute was pending. The applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to have their dispute resolved by the Bargaining Council without the recruitment process rendering the outcome moot.…
Source excerpt
- Urgent Interdict
- Promotion Dispute
- Undertaking By Employer
- Bargaining Council Referral
- Fair Labour Practices