BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T"

Transcription

1 Sneller Verbatim/MLS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/ In the matter between M KOAI Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T BARRIE, A J: [1] The applicant used to be employed by the third respondent, the Department of Correctional Services ("the Department") as a correctional officer. He was dismissed on 22 September [2] The matter has a long prior history, dating back to April It has its origins in animosity that apparently existed between the applicant, Mr Koai, and his superior, a Mr Reinecke, even before that time. [3] The basis for Mr Koai's dismissal was that he had on 5 April 1999 intimidated Mr Reinecke by threatening to kill him. [4] A disciplinary inquiry convened by the Department has found him guilty of this charge and also on another charge that he had been absent from work during official working hours without permission. For the latter offence the chairman of the disciplinary inquiry imposed a penalty of a "serious written warning." [5] Mr Koai appealed against the finding. The chairman of the appeal hearing confirmed the findings of the chairman of the

2 disciplinary inquiry, except that he decided to change the penalty for the unauthorised absence to summary dismissal as well. [6] Mr Koai disputed the fairness of his dismissal and the matter found its way to arbitration proceedings in terms of Section 191 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 ("the LRA") under the auspices of the second respondent ("the CCMA"). [7] The third respondent ("the Commissioner") heard the matter on 18 September Mr Koai was represented by a union official from the Police and Prisoners' Civil Rights Union, Mr Maluka, who had also represented him in the Department's prior disciplinary and appeal proceedings. The Department was represented by an official from the Department, Mr Mokonehatse. [8] The Commissioner handed down a written award on 27 November The Commissioner recorded that the parties had agreed that the only issue he had to decide was whether Mr Koai's dismissal for the alleged intimidation had been substantively fair. [9] The Commissioner had heard the testimony of six witnesses. He concluded that the Department had been able to discharge the onus resting upon it in terms of Section 192 of the LRA to prove that the dismissal had been (substantively) fair. He recorded his award as being that: "1. The dismissal of Mr Moshe Moses Koai was substantively fair and dismissal was an appropriate sanction. 2. In the circumstances the claim for alleged unfair dismissal is dismissed. 3. I make no order as to costs." [10] Mr Koai instituted review proceedings. He was assisted by an attorney. In his initial supporting affidavit he boldly stated that: "7.1 The 2nd respondent was biased when issuing this award. 7.2 The 2nd respondent failed to apply his mind fully to the case. 7.3 The 2nd respondent ignored relevant evidence led (by) the applicant."

3 [11] In a supplementary affidavit filed in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(A)(6) of rules of this Court, Mr Koai added substance to his prior averments and identified what can be regarded as his principal complaint. The complaint is that the Commissioner had erroneously concluded that Mr Koai's union representative had during the Department's domestic disciplinary proceedings admitted on behalf of Mr Koai that he had intimidated Mr Reinecke on the day in question. [12] The review application was not opposed by the Department and review was granted in terms of a reasoned judgment of Revelas J on 5 February [13] The Department subsequently applied to have the judgment rescinded on the ground that it had not received the notice of motion and that the supplementary affidavit had not received proper attention in the Department's legal services section because of a state of disarray that reigned there at the time. [14] The rescission application was granted on 16 January 2003 by agreement of the parties. [15] I have to decide whether there are grounds for interfering with the Commissioner's award. [16] In his supplementary papers Mr Koai contends that the Commissioner's award was unjustifiable, unreasonable and bizarre. I take it that this was intended to convey that Mr Koai wished to aver that: 1. The award was not justifiable in relation to the reasons given for it as referred to and explained in the judgment of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO and Others ILJ 1425 LAC 1434 B E. 2. The award was not rational or objectively justifiable if regard be had to the evidential material that served before the Commissioner, as referred to and explained in Shoprite (Pty) Limited v Ramdaw NO and Others BLLR 1011 LAC in paragraphs 17 to 26 at 1018 I to 1022 C, paragraph 82 at 1038 E to H and paragraph 101 at 1043 G to H, and 3. The arbitrator had committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings as intended by Section 145(2)(a)(ii) of the LRA.

4 [17] The principal peg on which the attack against the Commissioner's award is hung is the Commissioner's statement in the reasons for the award that the applicant had through his union representative admitted his guilt to the intimidation charge at the original disciplinary inquiry. [18] The Commissioner recorded that: "The applicant through his representative has admitted the commission of the offence at the disciplinary inquiry by stating that Mr Koai's (applicant) intimidation was because no one was able to help him, even when he stated his reasons and Mr Reyneke, the supervisor of personnel, could not help.' (As per page 7 on annexure C.) The applicant was aware of the Department's disciplinary procedure and given the length of his service, and that fact that he was a member of the Police and Prisoners' Civil Rights Union, he ought to have known the correct and proper channels to utilise in challenging an unreasonable denial to obtain permission to leave. Having evaluated the parties' evidence above, I must now decide whether the dismissal was substantively fair or not, as alleged by the applicant. In my view, the applicant's admission brings the inquiry to an end. The applicant has breached the company rule and he knew about the rule and in terms of the Department's disciplinary code, dismissal is applicable sanction for breaching

5 the rule. Therefore, following from my views expressed above, I find that the applicant's dismissal was substantively fair. All the facts which are immaterial and irrelevant have been omitted." [19] There is merit in the applicant's attack. The record of the original disciplinary inquiry recording Mr Koai's union representative's submissions reads as follows: "Mr Maloka said Mr Koai is not guilty of anything. Mr Maloka said the one of not on duty is clear and understandable as Mr Koai's father was sick. Mr Maloka said Mr Koai's intimidation was because no one was able to help him, even when he stated his reasons and Mr Reinecke, supervisor of personnel, could not help. Mr Moloka said Mr Koai had the decency of coming to work and report his matter. According to Mr Maloka, if he had a problem with a junior from outside will make sure he nail you at work. Mr Maloka said only Mr Reinecke opened a case but others who were threatened did not. According to Mr Maloka it shows that Mr Reinecke and Mr Koai are having their personal problems, but they have brought that problem to work. Mr Maloka said Mr Koai would not just wake up in the morning and say I am going to shoot you. It is just in the statement but Mr Koai did not say it."

6 [20] These statements appear to indicate that the union representative had either in his own mind accepted that Mr Koai had committed the intimidation or that he thought it likely that the chairman of the inquiry would come to such a conclusion. However, the representative clearly did not concede that the intimidation had taken place and the Commissioner erred by coming to the conclusion that he had. [21] That is, however, not the end of the inquiry before me. I have to take into account that the reasons for the Commissioner's award contain a detailed recording of the evidence that he had heard and that, after reviewing the evidence, he decided and recorded that the Department had been able to discharge the onus of proof. [22] The Commissioner recorded that he had evaluated the evidence. He recorded the facts which he regarded as material and relevant in his reasons. That evidence included the evidence of the applicant and a Mr Mothlohi and of the initial complainant, Mr Reinecke and a further witness Mr Van Vuuren. [23] The striking element of the evidence of Messrs Koai and Mothlohi was that their evidence appeared only to relate to the unauthorised absence charge. The upshot of their evidence was that Mr Reinecke had on the same day as the date of the alleged intimidation, unreasonably refused to approve compassionate leave for Mr Koai whose father had allegedly fallen ill. [24] It was only in cross-examination that Mr Koai stated that he denied that he had uttered the words that Mr Reinecke had complained of and that he denied that any altercation with Mr Reinecke had occurred that had been witnessed by Mr Van Vuuren. No efforts were made to contextualise this denial in relation to the allegations that Mr Reinecke and Mr Van Vuuren had made. It was simply a bare denial. [25] Mr Koai's failure directly to address the allegations of Messrs Reinecke and Van Vuuren had also obtained at the disciplinary inquiry. [26] There were also serious contradictions between the evidence of Mr Koai and his witness, particularly regarding where exactly the altercation about the leave had occurred. [27] In these circumstances a valid interpretation of the

7 Commissioner's reasons for his award may be that he had evaluated the evidence and had concluded that the Department's evidence regarding the intimidation outweighed Mr Koai's denial thereof. He believed Messrs Reinecke and Van Vuuren and not Mr Koai. If so, the Commissioner's recording that Mr Koai had via his representative admitted guilt, was simply an additional reason for the conclusion that the Department had been able to discharge the onus. [28] In these circumstances, there might be a rational objective basis justifying the connection made by the Commissioner between the material properly available to him and the conclusion he eventually arrived at. However, this does not appear with sufficient clarity from the Commissioner's reasons for his award. Although the Commissioner had apparently concluded that the evidence that intimidation had occurred was acceptable and that Mr Koai's denial was not credible, the principal reason that he gave for not accepting Mr Koai's denial, was that Mr Koai had on a prior occasion admitted the intimidation. This reason was wrong. [29] Taking into account the detailed recording of the evidence of the witnesses and reasons for the award, the error that the Commissioner committed of itself does not indicate that the Commissioner had not evaluated the evidence properly and that the conclusion after such evaluation that the Department had discharged the onus was unjustifiable or unjustified. [30] Nevertheless, in terms of his reasons as appears from the reasons for his award, the Commissioner relied heavily on an incorrect and thus irrelevant factual premise. [31] In the circumstances the Commissioner's award is not objectively justifiable in relation to the reasons given for it and it should potentially be reviewed and set aside. [32] Mr Boda, on behalf of the Department urged me to find that on the evidence in the papers before me, I should find that the award was nevertheless justifiable and I should accordingly not review it and set it aside. [33] I can unfortunately not accede to this suggestion. The record of the proceedings before me is deficient and I am simply not in as good a position as the Commissioner is to come to a conclusion. Despite the lapse of time since the matter served before the

8 Commissioner, he is still better placed than I am to do justice to the matter. [34] In these premises I intend to set the award aside and to remit it to the Commissioner with certain directions. As regards the costs of the review proceedings it appears to me that it would be inappropriate to make any costs order. Mr Koai will admittedly be successful with his review application. However, if the Commissioner confirms his prior award it would be unjust for Mr Koai to have been awarded the costs of the review. I make the following order: 1. The award of Commission Thabang T Serero ("the Commissioner") of 27 November 2000 issued under case number GA in the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, that: "1. The dismissal of Mr Moshe Moses Koai was substantively fair and dismissal was an appropriate sanction. 2. In the circumstances the claim for alleged unfair dismissal is dismissed. 3. I make no order as to costs. ("the Commissioner's prior award") is set aside." 2. The applicant's attorneys shall supply the Commissioner with: 2.1 The papers that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration have cause to be filed in the review proceedings (marked "X"). 2.2 The transcript of the record of the proceedings filed in the review proceedings (marked "Y"), and

9 2.3 A transcript of this judgment. 3. The Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter and to issue an award in the light of this judgment and without having regard to the alleged admission of guilt referred to in the "Analysis of evidence and argument" in the reasons for the Commissioner's prior award. 4. The Commissioner shall not hear any witnesses unless he finds himself unable to come to a conclusion on the basis of the material available to him. In such an event the Commissioner may require some or all of the witnesses who had testified before him before, again to testify if they are available. 5. Unless the Commissioner decides to rehear witnesses he shall not be obliged to afford the parties further opportunity to address argument to him. He shall, however, be entitled if he so desires, to call for further argument from the parties. 6. There shall be no costs order in respect of the review proceedings in this court." [35] In the order I refer to documentation marked "X" and "Y". I have marked the relevant documents in the Court file in this manner. F G BARRIE

10 Acting Judge of the Labour Court 29 May 2004

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 716/01. In the matter between: DUIKER MINING LTD. AND

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 716/01. In the matter between: DUIKER MINING LTD. AND IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 716/01 In the matter between: DUIKER MINING LTD. TAVISTOCK COLLIERY APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR 1147/14 In the matter between: THABISO MASHIGO Applicant and MEIBC First Respondent MOHAMMED RAFEE Second Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: JR115/02

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: JR115/02 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: JR115/02 In the matter between: KARAN BEEF Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION FAIZEL MOOI N.O

More information

Respondent (the Commissioner) made under case number GAJB ,

Respondent (the Commissioner) made under case number GAJB , IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR 819/07 In the matter between: LANDSEC 1 ST APPLICANT TORONTO HOUSE CC 2 ND APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98 In the matter between: COMPUTICKET Applicant and MARCUS, M H, NO AND OTHERS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date of Hearing:

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: JR56/2015 In the matter between: CASHBUILD SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (THULAMASHE) and GODFREY MKATEKO

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG Case No: JR953/13 Not Reportable In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION DIVID

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07 In the matter between: EVERTRADE Applicant and A KRIEL N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION KIM BOTES

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Case No: JA36/2004

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Case No: JA36/2004 1 IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case No: JA36/2004 In the matter between SERGIO CARLOS APPELLANT and IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD ELIAS M HLONGWANE N.O 1 ST RESPONDENT 2

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 1172/14 BROWNS, THE DIAMOND STORE Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA90/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS TAOLE ELIAS MOHLALISI First Appellant

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN CHEVRON SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN CHEVRON SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not reportable Case No: C 734/2016 In the matter between CHEVRON SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Applicant and CHEMICAL ENERGY PAPER PRINTING WOOD AND

More information

[1] The appellant who is before us pursuant to leave granted by the court a. with effect from 23 December It is common cause that the dismissal

[1] The appellant who is before us pursuant to leave granted by the court a. with effect from 23 December It is common cause that the dismissal IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) CASE NO.:JA61/99 In the matter between M MKHONTO Appellant and B L FORD N.O. 1 st Respondent THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT. JOHANNESBURG Case No: J3298/98

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT. JOHANNESBURG Case No: J3298/98 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case No: J3298/98 In the matter between FABBRICIANI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION & ARBITRATION J CAMPANELLA, COMMISSIONER

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NUM OBO ISHMAEL VETSHE AND 1 ANOTHER

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NUM OBO ISHMAEL VETSHE AND 1 ANOTHER REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 1718-12 In the matter between- NUM OBO ISHMAEL VETSHE AND 1 ANOTHER Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT HLABISI MASEGARE AND OTHERS

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT HLABISI MASEGARE AND OTHERS REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JS 293/2011 In the matter between - HLABISI MASEGARE AND OTHERS Applicants and ROBOR GALVANIZERS

More information

JR2032/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ] [11:34-11:52] JOHN RAMOTLAU SEKWATI. Third Respondent JUDGMENT

JR2032/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ] [11:34-11:52] JOHN RAMOTLAU SEKWATI. Third Respondent JUDGMENT JR32/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR32/15 DATE: 17-04-19 In the matter between JOHN RAMOTLAU SEKWATI Applicant and CCMA DUMISANI NGWENYA EDCON LTD

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG COMPUTER STORAGE SERVICES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG COMPUTER STORAGE SERVICES AFRICA (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: CA7/2016 In the matter between: COMPUTER STORAGE SERVICES AFRICA (PTY) LTD Appellant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SFF INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SFF INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR197/14 SOLIDARITY obo MEMBERS Applicants and SFF INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN First Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN Page 1 of 17 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN In the matter between: RAND WATER Applicant and T L MABUSELA N.0 1 st Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL

More information

In the matter between:

In the matter between: IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH Not reportable Case no: PA 1/14 In the matter between: BUILDERS WAREHOUSE (PTY) LTD Appellant COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES 1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 1265/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES Applicant and PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo R

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT (PTY) LTD (MAGARENG MINE)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT (PTY) LTD (MAGARENG MINE) THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2578 / 13 In the matter between: GLENCORE OPERATIONS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (MAGARENG MINE) Applicant and AMCU obo TSHEPO

More information

RALPH DENNIS DELL APPELLANT

RALPH DENNIS DELL APPELLANT IN LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JA 33/09 RALPH DENNIS DELL APPELLANT and SETON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD First Respondent COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION,

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1342/15 In the matter between: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Applicant and SILAS RAMASHOWANA N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT CASE no. D 137/2010 In the matter between: NEHAWU PT MAPHANGA First Applicant Second

More information

THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between - Case no: JR2772-12 Not Reportable NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS MOTSHABALEKGOSI MOFFAT First Applicant Second Applicant

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1225/2014 In the matter between: PSA obo SP MHLONGO Applicant and First Respondent THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL BARGAINING

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SHANDUKA COAL (PTY) LTD THE NATONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS ( NUM ) Seventh Respondent

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SHANDUKA COAL (PTY) LTD THE NATONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS ( NUM ) Seventh Respondent IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 725-15 Not Reportable In the matter between: SHANDUKA COAL (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JUDGMENT Case no: JR3457/09 In the matter between: NORTHAM PLATINUM LTD and M E PHOOKO N.O COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND

More information

In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012

In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JS171/2014 In the matter between: LYALL, MATHIESON MICHAEL Applicant And THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT A DIVISION OF HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT A DIVISION OF HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no. JR 601/11 In the matter between: FILTER AND HOSE SOLUTIONS A DIVISION OF HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD Applicant and

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not reportable CASE No: JR 1671/16 KELLOGG COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant and FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ASSMANG LIMITED (BLACKROCK MINE)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ASSMANG LIMITED (BLACKROCK MINE) THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 948/14 In the matter between: ASSMANG LIMITED (BLACKROCK MINE) Applicant and LEON DE BEER THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR 2720/12 In the matter between: T-SYSTEMS PTY LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Sitting in Cape Town. Case No : C639/98. In the matter between : NATIONAL MANUFACTURED FIBRES.

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Sitting in Cape Town. Case No : C639/98. In the matter between : NATIONAL MANUFACTURED FIBRES. 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Sitting in Cape Town Case No : C639/98 In the matter between : NATIONAL MANUFACTURED FIBRES SANS FIBRES (Pty) Ltd First Applicant Second Applicant and COMMISSIONER

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: D 869/2011 In the matter between: METRORAIL Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Review application- inconsistent application discipline

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Review application- inconsistent application discipline THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Of interest to other judges Case no: JR 314/2011 In the matter between: MONTE CASINO Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application to review and set aside the arbitration award made by the

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application to review and set aside the arbitration award made by the IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR1439/06 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS MONICA MITANI 1 ST APPLICANT 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMMISSION FOR

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN. Nehawu obo Obakeng Victor Tilodi

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN. Nehawu obo Obakeng Victor Tilodi IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not Reportable In the matter between Case no: C30/15 Nehawu obo Obakeng Victor Tilodi Applicant and COMMISSIONER T NDZOMBANE First Respondent DEPARTMENT OF

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 1147/10 In the matter between: SA POST OFFICE LTD and CCMA JW MCGAHEY

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN MEC FOR EDUCATION, GAUTENG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN MEC FOR EDUCATION, GAUTENG Reportable Delivered 28092010 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO JR 1846/09 In the matter between: MEC FOR EDUCATION, GAUTENG APPLICANT and DR N M M MGIJIMA 1 ST RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: PR110/16 In the matter between: DALUBUHLE UYS MFIKI Applicant And GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG L A CRUSHERS (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG L A CRUSHERS (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: L A CRUSHERS (PTY) LTD Not Reportable Case no: JR 1676/14 Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN In the matter between: CASE NO J 1316/10 DIGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION ERENS MASHEGO & OTHERS

More information

Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction

Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE Introduction It is trite that in criminal proceedings a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, once that person has been

More information

Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction

Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE Introduction It is trite that in criminal proceedings a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, once that person has been

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BILLION GROUP (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BILLION GROUP (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA 64/2016 In the matter between: BILLION GROUP (PTY) LTD Appellant and MOTHUSI MOSHESHE First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Is a municipality compelled to accept the ruling made by a disciplinary appeal tribunal?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Is a municipality compelled to accept the ruling made by a disciplinary appeal tribunal? DOUBLE JEOPARDY 1. Introduction Is a municipality compelled to accept the ruling made by a disciplinary appeal tribunal? 2. Background An employee was charged with two counts of misconduct. The case was

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN SOLID DOORS (PTY) LTD

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN SOLID DOORS (PTY) LTD SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 665/2011 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LTD and CCMA TARIQ

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Case No JS 1318/09 In the matter between: GABRIEL MABITLE First Applicant and TSELISO NTSENO Second Applicant and EDCON Respondent HEADS OF ARGUMENT

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: 625/10 No precedential significance NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Appellant Second Appellant

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN G-WAYS CMT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN G-WAYS CMT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Reportable Case no: CA 11/2015 In the matter between: G-WAYS CMT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD Appellant and NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CLOTHING

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant. DENISE ERASMUS 1 ST Respondent

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant. DENISE ERASMUS 1 ST Respondent THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) CASE NO. C 455/07 In the matter between: PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant And DENISE ERASMUS 1 ST Respondent ADV KOEN DE KOCK 2 ND Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG. DATE: 7 July 1998 CASE NO. J1029/98. SECUNDA SUPERMARKET C.C. trading as SECUNDA SPAR

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG. DATE: 7 July 1998 CASE NO. J1029/98. SECUNDA SUPERMARKET C.C. trading as SECUNDA SPAR VIC & DUP/JOHANNESBURG/LKS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG DATE: 7 July 1998 CASE NO. J1029/98 In the matter between: SECUNDA SUPERMARKET C.C. trading as SECUNDA SPAR First Applicant

More information

SUNCRUSH LIMITED APPELLANT SICELO BRIAN NKOSI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. company excluded the workers from its premises.

SUNCRUSH LIMITED APPELLANT SICELO BRIAN NKOSI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. company excluded the workers from its premises. IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT DURBAN) CASE NO: DA 39\97 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: SUNCRUSH LIMITED APPELLANT AND SICELO BRIAN NKOSI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KROON JA: [1] During September

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case no: JR 64/2014 IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03806/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 339/13 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BRIDGESTONE SA (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BRIDGESTONE SA (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not reportable Case no: JA28/15 In the matter between: BRIDGESTONE SA (PTY) LTD Appellant and NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS UNION OF

More information

INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD THE ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY

INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD THE ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA51/15 In the matter between:- G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD Appellant And MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MTWU)

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2209/13 In the matter between: N M THISO & 6 OTHERS Applicants And T MOODLEY

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Reportable C973/2013 In the matter between: WESTERN CAPE GAMBLING & RACING BOARD And COMIMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NEHAWU obo ESME MAGOBIYANA

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NEHAWU obo ESME MAGOBIYANA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JR 677/16 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo ESME MAGOBIYANA Applicant And IMTHIAZ SIRKHOT N.O.

More information

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN. NUMSA obo Z JADA & 1 OTHER

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN. NUMSA obo Z JADA & 1 OTHER REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable Case no: D834/2009 In the matter between: NUMSA obo Z JADA & 1 OTHER Applicant and DEFY REFRIGERATION A DIVISION OF DEFY

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: D62/09 In the matter between: INDIRA KRISHNA Applicant and UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL Respondent Heard: 24

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SOLIDARITY OBO MJJ VAN VUUREN

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SOLIDARITY OBO MJJ VAN VUUREN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2791/08 In the matter between: SOLIDARITY OBO MJJ VAN VUUREN APPLICANT AND LEKWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS APPEAL COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Khalid Naseem Sipra Heard on: 25 and 26 July 2016 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: The

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

JR2218/12-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ][11:33] Ex-Tempore

JR2218/12-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ][11:33] Ex-Tempore JR2218/12-avs 1 JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR2218/12 DATE: 14-12-04 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION SOC LTD Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Case no: DA15/02. In the matter between:

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Case no: DA15/02. In the matter between: IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case no: DA15/02 In the matter between: LIFECARE SPECIAL HEALTH SERVICES (PTY) LTD t/a EKUHLENGENI CARE CENTRE APPELLANT and THE COMMISSION

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH PARMALAT SA (PTY) LTD

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH PARMALAT SA (PTY) LTD THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: PR 78 /2016 PARMALAT SA (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION R

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J 2121/10 In the matter between: MTN SERVICE PROVIDER (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JA37/2017 In the matter between: PIET WES CIVILS CC WATERKLOOF SKOONMAAKDIENSTE CC First Appellant Second Appellant and

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 61/18 ALLAN LONG Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION M MBULI

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Nos: JR1061-2007 In the matter between: SAMANCOR LIMITED Applicant and NUM obo MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Respondent TAXING MASTER, LABOUR

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN PICK N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN PICK N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: CA 19/2015 In the matter between: PICK N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and SOUTH AFRICAN CATERING COMMERCIAL

More information

1] This is an urgent application brought in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of the

1] This is an urgent application brought in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of the IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J1245/09 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LIMITED APPLICANT AND COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION 1 ST RESPONDENT

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2558/13 In the matter between: BHP BILLITON ENERGY COAL SOUTH AFRICA PTY LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

INTRODUCTION. [1] This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the third and

INTRODUCTION. [1] This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the third and 1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF AOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO JR 958/05 RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED (RUSTENBURG SECTION) APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) INSPEKTEX MMAMAILE CONSTRUCTION & FIRE PROOFING (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) INSPEKTEX MMAMAILE CONSTRUCTION & FIRE PROOFING (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO J1264/08 In the matter between: INSPEKTEX MMAMAILE CONSTRUCTION & FIRE PROOFING (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and JACOBUS COETZEE JACOBUS COETZEE

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 410/2014 In the matter between: Vukile GOMBA Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER K KLEINOT NAMPAK TISSUE

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) SEJAKE CASSIUS SEBATANA

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) SEJAKE CASSIUS SEBATANA 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Reportable Case no. J 2069/11 In the matter between: SEJAKE CASSIUS SEBATANA Applicant And RATTON LOCAL MUNICIPALITY GLEN LEKOMANYANE N.O. First

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no.:jr2283/09 In the matter between: RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

MEC FOR HEALTH (GAUTENG) APPLICANT

MEC FOR HEALTH (GAUTENG) APPLICANT 1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JR 283/05 MEC FOR HEALTH (GAUTENG) APPLICANT AND BM MATHAMINI FIRST RESPONDENT ZODWA MDLADLA N.O SECOND RESPONDENT

More information

INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA38/15 WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD Appellant and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION K MOHLAFUNO First Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JA27/15 INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD Appellant and DANIEL PHAKWE First Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN ROAD PASSENGER BARGAINING

More information

for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has

for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JA2/08 In the matter between: ADVOCATE RAYNOLD BRACKS N.O. First Appellant (First Respondent in the court a quo) COMMISSION FOR

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 344/2016 In the matter between: IMATU Applicant and CCMA JOSEPH WILLIAMS N.O. MATUSA SAMWU SALGA STELLENBOSCH

More information

SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT

SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO JR/1368-05 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CWU obo MTHOMBENI APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER E.L.E.

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS

More information

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS.

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS. IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO: 153/2008 BRENDAN FAAS Appellant vs THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT: 29 APRIL 2008 Meer, J: [1]

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 376/2012 In the matter between: Deon DU RANDT Applicant and ULTRAMAT SOUTH

More information

SELECTED JUDGMENTS. Jappie JA (Hendricks AJA and Van Zyl AJA concurring) held:

SELECTED JUDGMENTS. Jappie JA (Hendricks AJA and Van Zyl AJA concurring) held: SELECTED JUDGMENTS NOVO NORSDISK (PTY) LTD v COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION & ARBITRATION & OTHERS (2011) 32 ILJ 2663 (LAC) Case heard 7 September 2010, Judgment delivered 6 June 2011 The employee

More information

KEM-LIN FASHIONS CC Appellant

KEM-LIN FASHIONS CC Appellant IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Johannesburg Case No: DA 1015/99 In the matter between: KEM-LIN FASHIONS CC Appellant and C BRUNTON 1 ST Respondent BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CLOTHING

More information