About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZALCJHB 77
|
|
Maemu v Cargo Works (J194/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 77 (17 December 2010)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: J194/09
In
the matter between:
EPHRAIM
MAEMU
Applicant
and
CARGO
WORKS
Respondent
JUDGMENT
FRANCIS
J
1.
This is an application to make an arbitration award issued by
commissioner Babalo Metu of the National Bargaining Council for
the
Road Freight Industry (the bargaining council) on 18 September 2008
under case number GPRFBC2623 an order of Court in terms
of section
158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the Act).
2.
The application was opposed by the respondent on the basis that there
is an application to review the arbitration award pending
before this
Court.
3.
The review application was filed under case number JR403/09 on 2
March 2009. Since the filing of the review application
on 2
March 2009, the respondent in this application has taken no steps to
prosecute the review application. Mr Ray-Howett
who appeared
for the respondent informed the Court that the bargaining council had
filed the record of the proceedings in March
2009 and the respondent
brought an application to compel in October 2010.
4.
The Court file does not reflect that the bargaining council had filed
the record in March 2009. An application to compel
the
bargaining council was only filed with this Court on 21 October 2010
which was on the same day when this application was heard
in Court.
No explanation is tendered about what had happened between the period
March 2009 and October 2010.
5.
This case shows that the respondent has not been vigilant in
prosecuting the review application. The notice to compel the
bargaining council was only filed after the Court had asked the
respondent’s representative about the steps that he had taken
to prosecute the review application.
6.
This Court may in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Act make an award
an order of Court. The court has a discretion in
making an
award an order of court. The discretion must be exercised
judicially. It is trite that labour disputes must
be dealt with
expeditiously. It is also trite that parties must be vigilant
in prosecuting their matters before this Court.
This case shows
the opposite.
7.
The respondent has been the author of its own misfortune. It
has not been vigilant in prosecuting the review application.
The review application was filed as a delaying tactic to prevent the
applicant from enjoying the fruits of the award.
8.
There is no reason why this Court should not make the award an order
of Court.
9.
There is no reason why costs should not follow the result.
10.
In the circumstances I make the following order:
10.1
The arbitration award made by commissioner Babalo Metu of the
National Bargaining Council for the Road
Freight Industry on 18
September 2008 under case number GPRFBC2623 is made an order of court
in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the
Act.
10.2
The respondent is to pay the costs of the application,
________________________
FRANCIS
J
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FOR
APPLICANT
: D
MKWANAZI INSTRUCTED BY NETSHITUNGULU ATTORNEYS
FOR
RESPONDENT
:
ATTORNEY GRANT RAY HOWETT
DATE
OF HEARING
: 21
OCTOBER 2010
DATE OF
JUDGMENT
: 17
DECEMBER 2010