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 346
|
|
City of Johannesburg v SAMWU obo Monareng and Another (J1215/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 346 (29 September 2017)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportable
CASE
NO. J 1215/17
In
the matter between:
CITY
OF
JOHANNESBURG
Applicant
and
SAMWU
obo LUCAS MONARENG
First
Respondent
THE
SHERIFF
(JOHANNESBURG
NORTH)
Second
Respondent
Heard
: In Chambers
Date
delivered:29 September 2017
JUDGMENT
(LEAVE
TO APPEAL)
BALOYI
AJ
Introduction
1.
On 08 June 2017 while
sitting in urgent court I made the following order:
“
1.
This application is heard as one of urgency as provided for in terms
of Rule 8 and the Applicant’s failure to comply
with normality
in the periods, forms and services as provided for in terms of the
rules is condoned.
2.
The enforcement of the
award issued under case number JMD 011607 and HO362-17 is stayed
pending review application subject to the
Applicant delivering a
resolution by Council in order to furnish security by no later than
10 August 2017 as required in terms
of Section 145(8)(9) of the LRA
in view of specific performance ordered in terms of the award.
3.
The matter is enrolled to
10 August 2017 for purposes of establishing fulfilment of condition
on security failing which the order
shall lapse.
4.
There is no order as to
costs.”
2.
It is apparent that by 10 August 2017 the Applicant did not furnish
security as ordered but sought another order staying the
writ of
execution pending determination of application for leave to appeal
filed on 23 June 2017 Consequently my Learned
Brother Myburgh
AJ made the following order:
1.
The matter is postponed
sine die pending the finalization of the application for leave to
appeal, with costs being reserved.
2.
The writ of execution is
stayed pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal.”
The
grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought
3.
I deem it not necessary
to deal in detail with the two grounds raised. What is central
to the Applicant’s case is that
as a local government
authority, it is not required to furnish security in terms of section
145 of the Labour Relations Act.
4.
Since the issue of
security is of public interest coupled with the fact that the Labour
Court has handed down conflicting judgments
in this regard, leave to
appeal should accordingly be granted.
Evaluation
5.
It needs no further
introduction that the provisions related to security came into the
Labour Relations Act through amendments which
came to effect in
January 2015. This issue has certainly led to different
reactions from litigants and the court had perpetualyy
been placed to
task of making pronouncements in this regard.
6.
The conflicting judgments
handed down by this court which the Applicant referred to are;
6.1
Firstly
Free
State Gambling and Liquor Authority v CCMA & Others
[1]
wherein the court ruled that the Applicant in the review application
whose position is similar to that of the Applicant is not
required to
furnish security,
6.2
Secondly in
Rustenburg
Local Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining
Council & Others
[2]
it was to the contrary held that the public service institutions have
to furnish security for purposes of section 145.
7.
Based
on what may appear to be conflicting decisions, there exist a
compelling reason for the hearing of the appeal
[3]
.
I find no reason why the application should not be granted.
8.
In the premises the
following order is made:
8.1
The application for leave
to appeal is granted.
8.2
There is no order as to
costs.
___________________
BALOYI
AJ
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
:
Determined in chambers
[1]
(2015) 36 ILJ 2867 LC.
[2]
[2017] ZALCJHB 216 (30 June 2017)
[3]
Section 17(1)(a)(ii)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
.