POPCRU and Others v Regional Commissioner for Correctional Services, Western Cape and Another (C1126/2010) [2011] ZALCCT 76 (13 January 2011)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Appeal — Application for leave to appeal against judgment of Labour Court — Test for granting leave to appeal being whether there is a reasonable prospect of a different conclusion by another court — Applicants, engaged in essential services, aggrieved by new shift arrangement, not rendering services during disputed period — Court not persuaded that another court may reach a different conclusion — Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

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
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZALCCT 76
|

|

POPCRU and Others v Regional Commissioner for Correctional Services, Western Cape and Another (C1126/2010) [2011] ZALCCT 76 (13 January 2011)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT CAPE TOWN
CASE
NO: C1126/2010
In
the matter between:
POPCRU                                                                                                            First

Applicant
SS
BANGANI &
OTHERS                                                         Second

to further Applicants
and
THE
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES,
WESTERN CAPE

First

Respondent
THE
AREA COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES,
GOODWOOD MANAGEMENT ARE
Second

Respondent
JUDGMENT
FRANCIS
J
1.
This is an application by the applicants for leave to appeal against
the whole
of my judgment and order of 7 January 2011 on an urgent
basis.
2.
The applicants have raised several grounds for leave to appeal.
I do not
deem it necessary to repeat those grounds for leave to
appeal.
3.
In terms of section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
(“the
Act”), an appeal lies from a judgment of the Labour
Court to the Labour Appeal Court with leave of the Labour Court.

The traditional test in deciding whether leave to appeal should be
granted is whether there is a reasonable prospect that another
court
may come to a different conclusion to that reached by me.
4.
The fact is that the second to further applicants were not rendering
any services
at all since 1 to 20 December 2010 either in terms of
the old arrangement or the new interim arrangement.  This was
not disputed
by the applicants who are engaged in essential
services.  They felt aggrieved with the new shift arrangement.
5.
I have carefully considered the grounds for leave to appeal, the
parties’
submissions and my judgment and am not persuaded that
another court may come to a different conclusion to that reached by
me in
my judgment.
6.
In the circumstances I make the following order:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
________________________
FRANCIS
J
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE
APPLICANTS

:           J L
BASSON INSTRUCTED BY GROSSKOPF ATTORNEYS
FOR
RESPONDENTS

:           T J
GOLDEN INSTRUCTED BY STATE ATTORNEY
DATE
OF HEARING

:           13
JANUARY 2011
DATE OF
JUDGMENT

:           13
JANUARY 2011