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 386
|
|
Holtzman v Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (C925/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 386 (10 November 2015)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case
no: C925/15
In
the matter between:
ZELDA
HOLTZMAN
Applicant
and
PARLIAMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Respondent
Heard:
6 November 2015
Delivered:
10 November 2015
JUDGMENT
RABKIN-NAICKER,
J
[1]
This
urgent application came before me on 6 November 2015. On 27 October
2015 the parties agreed on a timetable for the filing of
answering
and replying papers and heads of argument, which was made an order of
court by my brother Lagrange J. The order also
provided that the
disciplinary proceedings sought to be suspended would not proceed
until this matter had been heard.
[2]
The
relief sought by the applicant is set out in the Notice of Motion as
follows:
“
1.
Directing that all forms and notices be dispensed with and that the
matter be heard as one of urgency
in terms of Rule 8 of the Labour
Court Rules;
2.
That the Respondent be interdicted and refrained from proceeding with
the disciplinary hearing
scheduled (on short notice) to be commenced
with
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER 2015
as provided for in the
respondent’s notice of disciplinary hearing dated Thursday 22
October 2015;
3.
That the Respondent be interdicted and refrained from commencing with
the aforementioned
disciplinary hearing pending the outcome of an
unfair labour practice dispute under case number
WCT13510/15
relating to the Protected Disclosure which dispute is scheduled
for hearing before Senior Commissioner Piet van Staden from Monday
23
November 2015 up until Friday 27 November 2015;
4.
That the Respondent is to pay the costs of the application; and
5.
Further and/or alternative relief.”
[3]
It
was only at the hearing of the matter that I was informed that a
Jurisdictional Ruling was to be issued by the CCMA on Monday
9
November 2015. The Ruling would deal with the CCMA’s
jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair labour practice dispute relating
to an alleged protected disclosure under case number WCT13510/15.
[4]
I
raised my concern that given the relief sought, the ruling may well
render this application moot. On 9 November 2015, the Ruling
was
handed down by Senior Commissioner Piet van Staden in which he found
that the CCMA does not have jurisdiction to hear the said
dispute. In
the result, his Ruling comprises the outcome of the applicant’s
referral under case number WCT13510/15. The relief
sought in
paragraph 3 of the Notice of Motion would, if granted, have no
practical effect.
[5]
The
applicant would have been better advised to seek a postponement of
the disciplinary proceedings pending the issuing of the
Jurisdictional Ruling. This was a most suitable an alternative remedy
in the circumstances.
[6]
Mr
Nortje for the applicant submitted that if the Jurisdictional Ruling
was in the respondent’s favour, the applicant would
have at
least been partially successful in preventing the disciplinary
hearing from starting on 28 October 2015. I agree with Mr
Stelzner
for the respondent, that the reason for the halting of the
proceedings was for the purpose of filing of answering papers
to an
application brought on very short notice. The application cannot be
considered partially successful for cost considerations.
[7]
The
Respondent is not seeking costs in the matter.
[8]
In
the result I make the following order:
I.
The
application is dismissed;
II.
There
is no order as to costs.
__________________
Rabkin-Naicker J
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
On
behalf of the Applicant:
Adv J Nortje with Adv
Z Cornelissen
Instructed
by:
Riley Inc
On
behalf of the Respondent:
Adv RGL Stelzner SC
Instructed
by:
Webber Wentzel Attorneys