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
Mvulo v Amathole District Municipality (P16/22) [2022] ZALCPE 34 (7 November 2022)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a contempt finding, holding that the respondents had no prospects of success and remained bound to comply with the order.
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (J735/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 182; [2021] 10 BLLR 1049 (LC) (6 July 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed NUMSA’s urgent bid to stop Eskom implementing a final offer and changing conditions of service pending arbitration, finding no clear right and an adequate statutory remedy.
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Anglo American Platinum Ltd and Others (J1833/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 238; [2018] 11 BLLR 1110 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2280 (LC) (2 July 2018)
The court found that the contracts of employment, in all their iterations, grant Rusplats the prerogative to determine and change the retirement fund for its employees. The language of the contracts, supported by the employment manual and the rules of the AGPF, clearly allows the employer to nominate a different fund and require employees to transfer. The union's construction was inconsistent with statutory context and would lead to insensible results. The wage agreement's peace obligation does not preclude Rusplats from effecting changes permitted by contract, nor does it impose limitations…
Source excerpt
SOS Protec Sure v South African Revolutionary Allied Workers Union (D955/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 262 (5 July 2017)
The Labour Court granted partial relief in an urgent strike-interdict application, barring strike action based on a payslip demand but leaving other demands unresolved.
Tshifhango and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (JR951/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 97; (2017) 38 ILJ 2131 (LC) (23 March 2017)
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a salary downgrade after finding the Department acted without procedural fairness before applying section 38 of the Public Service Act.
Swissport South Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Movement and Another (J1917/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 489 (16 September 2016)
The Labour Court confirmed an interdict against an intended strike, finding the dispute was about interpretation of collective agreements, not a unilateral change to terms.
Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Imperial Cargo Solutions v SATAWU and Others (J1662/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 294; (2014) 35 ILJ 3162 (LC) (1 August 2014)
The Labour Court held that SATAWU could strike over restored trip fees after Imperial stopped paying them, and discharged the interim interdict.
Schindler Lifts SA (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Councils and Others (JR 1551/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 248 (2 October 2013)
The court found that the Commissioner applied the correct legal principles and properly considered the facts. The applicant's conduct, specifically the unilateral demotion and reduction in salary without consultation, made the employee's continued employment intolerable. The employee did not immediately resign but attempted to resolve the issue, demonstrating a desire to maintain the employment relationship. The failure to lodge a formal grievance was not fatal, as the applicant was made aware of the employee's dissatisfaction and failed to address it. The totality of circumstances indicated…
Source excerpt
Minister of Public Service and Administration and Another v Kaylor (CA18/12) [2013] ZALAC 11; [2013] 9 BLLR 858 (LAC); (2013) 34 ILJ 3111 (LAC) (11 June 2013)
The Labour Appeal Court held that PALAMA unlawfully placed the employee in a new post without meaningful consultation and without proof of proper delegation.
Abrahams v Drake & Scull Facilities Management (SA) Pty Ltd (C 1105/10) [2011] ZALCCT 30; [2012] 5 BLLR 434 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1093 (LC) (11 November 2011)
The Labour Court held that an employer could not unilaterally cut an employee’s salary. It ordered restoration of the contract, back pay, provident fund differences and costs.
Explore more
