Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06) [2007] ZALCCT 12 (15 February 2007)

50 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Arbitration — Review of arbitration award — Arbitrator's finding that employer failed to consult union for meaningful consensus-seeking consultation regarding short time — Definition of "short time" and consultation requirements under Main Agreement considered — Employer issued one day's notice as required, and correspondence constituted sufficient consultation — Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction regarding January 2006 short time as no dispute referred to bargaining council — Award reviewed and set aside.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZALCCT 12
|

|

Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd v De Kock NO and Others (C400/06) [2007] ZALCCT 12 (15 February 2007)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT CAPE TOWN
CASE
NO:C400/06
In
the matter between:
CADEMA
INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD

APPLICANT
and
C
DE KOCK NO

1
ST
RESPONDENT
SOUTHERN
AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE
WORKERS
UNION

2
ND
RESPONDENT
NATIONAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE
CLOTHING
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
(WESTERN
CAPE SUB-CHAMBER)
3
RD
RESPONDENT
REASONS
FOR ORDER GRANTED ON 15/02/07
PILLAY
D, J
The
award was reviewed and set aside because the arbitrator found that
the applicant, Cadema Industries (Pty) Ltd, failed to consult
the
second respondent, the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers
Union (SACTWU) at the earliest opportunity for meaningful

consensus-seeking consultation about the short time imposed on 14
th
and 15
th
December 2005 and 23
rd
and 24
th
January 2006.  In so doing the arbitrator disregarded the
definition of “short time” and the short time provisions

in clause 12.4 of the Main Agreement. The Main Agreement requires an
employer to issue one day’s notice for short time. Given
the
purpose of short time and the short notice periods, the standard of
consultation that precedes short time is not as extensive
as that
prescribed for retrenchment.
On
the facts, the parties did consult via correspondence. A more
protracted consultation would have defeated the purpose of the
short
time. With regard to his ruling pertaining to the January 2006, short
time the arbitrator had no jurisdiction as no dispute
had been
referred to the 3
rd
Respondent bargaining council.
DATED
AT DURBAN ON 25 DECEMBER 2007-12-25
___________
PILLAY
D, J