About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 352
|
|
Imvula Quality Protection and Others v University of South Africa (J435/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 352 (26 September 2017)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
C
ase
no: j 435/17
In
the matter between:
IMVULA
QUALITY PROTECTION
First
Applicant
PERSONS
LISTED IN ANNEX A
Second
to further Applicants
RED
ALERT TSS (PTY) LTD
First
Intervening Applicant
PERSONS
LISTED IN ANNEX B
Second to further Intervening Applicants
And
UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Respondent
Delivered
:
26 September 2017
RULING:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
The applicants apply for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment delivered by this court on 7 September 2017.
[2]
An application for leave to appeal falls to be considered in terms of
s 17
of the
Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
.
Section 17
(1) (a)(ii)
provides that leave to appeal may be given is there is some
compelling reason, other than that the appeal would have
a reasonable
prospect off success, why the appeal should be heard.
[3]
I do not intend to make any findings in relation to the grounds for
appeal on which the applicant relies. The present matter
concerns the
application of
s 197
of the LRA to an insourcing of services in
circumstances where the only subject of any transfer is, in effect,
the contracts of
employment of some but not all of the employees
engaged by the outgoing service provider. The application of
s 197
in
these circumstances has not, as far as I am aware, been the subject
of consideration by a higher court. Further, the application
or
otherwise of
s 197
in these circumstances is a matter which requires
certainty, not only for tertiary institutions such as the respondent
many of
whom have undertaken or will undertake similar exercises, but
for employers and employees more generally.
[4]
For these reasons, I have decided to grant the application for leave
to appeal.
I
make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal
is granted, costs to be costs in the appeal.
André
van Niekerk
Judge