About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 89
|
|
Efficient Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1019/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 89 (11 March 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
The Labour Court
of South Africa, JOHANNESBURG
Judgment
C
ase
No: JR1019/14
DATE:
11 MARCH 2015
Not
reportable
In
the matter between:
EFFICIENT
ENGINEERING (PTY)
LTD
.............................................................................
Applicant
And
METAL
AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING COUNCIL
...........
First
respondent
COMMISSIONER
N.P.
MBEKWA
.........................................................................
Second
respondent
UCIMESHAWU
obo JOHANNES
MOICHELA
....................................................
Third
Respondent
Delivered:
11 March 2015
RULING
ON LEAVE TO APPEAL
STEENKAMP
J
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against
my judgment of 4 February 2015.
[2]
In that judgment, I found that the
conclusion reached by the arbitrator on the evidence before her falls
within a range of reasonable
outcomes. The application to review her
award was therefore dismissed.
[3]
This
Court was recently reminded of the principles governing leave to
appeal by the Labour Appeal Court
[1]
:
““
The
Labour Relations Act was designed to ensure an expeditious resolution
of industrial disputes. This means that courts,
particularly
courts in the position of the court
a
quo
, need to be cautious when leave to
appeal is granted, as should this Court when petitions are granted.
There
are two sets of interests to consider. There are the interests
of the parties such as appellant, who are entitled to
have their
rights vindicated, if there is a reasonable prospect that another
court might come to a different conclusion. There
are also the rights
of employees who land up in a legal “no-man’s-land”
and have to wait years for an appeal
(or two) to be prosecuted.
This
was a case which should have ended in the Labour Court. This matter
should not have come to this court. It stood to be resolved
on its
own facts. There is no novel point of law to be determined nor
did the Court a quo misinterpret existing law. There
was no incorrect
application of the facts; in particular the assessment of the factual
justification for the dismissals/alternative
sanctions.”
[4]
The same principles apply to this case.
There is no reasonable prospect that another court will come to a
different conclusion,
given the strict test on review. There is no
novel point of law to consider. The arbitrator decided the matter on
the facts. There
is no reasonable prospect that another court will
overturn her conclusion on review.
[5]
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
Steenkamp
J
[1]
Martin
& East v NUM
(2014)
35
ILJ
2399 (LAC).