Judgments

The Labour Court considered an application to review and set aside an arbitration award that had found the applicant's dismissal procedurally and substantively fair. The court said the complaints were in the nature of an appeal rather than a review, and dismissed the application. There was no order as to costs.

The Labour Court considered a dispute about the termination of a fixed term employment contract and the probationary period in that contract. It found that the respondent had not complied with clause 5 of the contract and ordered damages of R1 777 000, 00 and costs. The judgment also records that the applicant’s case was brought under section 77(3) of the BCEA and the common law of contract, rather than as an unfair dismissal claim.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Motor Industry Bargaining Council v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR3479/09) [2010] ZALC 195 (17 December 2010).

The Labour Court considered an application to make a CCMA arbitration award an order of court and to declare non-compliance with that award. The judgment records a dispute about the applicant’s return to work, the route he was allocated, and sleeping arrangements on the Gautrain route, and the application was dismissed.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Esquire System Technology (Pty) Ltd t/a Esquire Technologies v Cronje and Another (J2442/10) [2010] ZALC 198; (2011) 32 ILJ 601 (LC) (17 December 2010).

The Labour Court dealt with a review of an arbitration award about the termination of a head of department’s services by the North West Department of Education. The court found that the award, which treated the termination as linked to operational requirements and severance pay, was reasonable and dismissed the review with costs.

SAFlii has listed this judgment: Maemu v Cargo Works (J194/09) [2010] ZALC 196 (17 December 2010).

The Labour Court considered a review application about an arbitration award concerning the dismissal of an employee and an award of compensation. The judgment discusses the emails sent on 5 and 6 February 2009, the later letter requiring her to return to work on 12 February 2009, and the court's treatment of the compensation issue.

The Labour Court considered whether Metrobus’s revised shift schedule amounted to a unilateral change to bus drivers’ terms and conditions of employment. It found that the change was no more than a change in work practice and confirmed the rule nisi, with no order as to costs.