About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZALCJHB 50
|
|
South African Municipal Workers Union and Others v City of Johannesburg (J 325/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 50 (11 April 2013)
1
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
CASE NO:
J
325/13
In the matter between:
SOUTH
AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION
AMD
27 OTHERS
....................................................................................................
APPLICANT
and
CITY
OF JOHANNESBURG
................................................................................
RESPONDENT
Date
of ruling: 11 April 2013 (in Chambers)
RULING: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1] This is an
application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment
delivered by the court on 25 February 2013, after
hearing an urgent
application on 22 February. The facts that are material to the
dispute between the parties are recorded in the
judgment, and I do
not intend to repeat them here.
[2] The test to be
applied is well-established – leave is granted if there are
reasonable prospects of success.
[3] In so far as the
grounds of leave to appeal attack factual findings made by the court,
the court found that the collective agreement
that applied on
transfer of the affected employees allows for a discretion to change
shifts. Clause 11.2 of the 2006 Conditions
of Service pertaining to
shift work expressly permits the general manager to determine shift
times. That being so, in line with
the applicable authorities a
change to shift times does not in these circumstances amount to a
change to terms and conditions of
employment. The distinction between
a work practice and a term and condition of employment was recently
confirmed by the LAC in
Motor Industry Staff Association v
Silverton Spray painters and Panel beaters (Pty) Ltd
(case no JA
5/2011, 31 December 2012), where a change in the manner in which a
job is to be performed was clearly classified as
a change to a work
practice. This is consistent with the long-standing jurisprudence in
this court to the effect that a change
in shift patterns does not
amount to a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment
not least where the change and the
right to effect change is
specifically contemplated by those terms.
[4] The definition of
‘lockout’ does not extend to the conduct of the
respondent in the present instance, a principle
acknowledged and
applied in identical circumstances more recently by Steenkamp J in
SATAWU v Bid Air Services (PTY) Ltd
(case no J 394/13, 7 March
2013).
[5] I am not persuaded
that the applicant has established reasonable prospects of success in
any appeal to the LAC, and for that
reason, the application stands to
be dismissed.
I
make the following order:
Leave to appeal is
refused, with costs.
Andrè van Niekerk
Judge of the Labour Court