About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCCT 42
|
|
Watson v South African Rugby Union and Others (C672/15) [2017] ZALCCT 42 (6 September 2017)
Not
Reportable
Case
NO: C672/15
In
the matter between:
ANDRÉ
WATSON
Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN RUGBY UNION (‘SARU’)
First Respondent
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
&
ARBITRATION
Second
Respondent
JOSEPH
WILSON
THEE
Third Respondent
Decided:
In Chambers
Delivered:
6 September 2017
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
TLHOTLHALEMAJE,
J
[1]
Following upon a review application as
launched by the applicant, judgment was handed down on 30 June 2017
in terms of which the
following order was made;
1.
“
The
Arbitration award dated 27 June 2015 issued by the Third Respondent
under case number WECT 4145-15 is reviewed, set-aside and
substituted
with the following order;
(a)
‘
Andrew Watson is
found guilty under charges 1 (a), 1 (b) and 1 (c); and 3 as
stipulated in the Notice of Arbitration
(b)
Andrew Watson is to be
issued with a Final Written Warning in respect of the guilt finding
under charges 1(c) and 3’
2.
The First Respondent is
ordered to reinstate Watson in its employ, on the same terms and
conditions as applicable to his employment
prior to his dismissal.
3
The reinstatement order
as above shall operate with retrospective effect.
4
Back-pay due and payable
to Watson as a result of the order of retrospective reinstatement as
above shall be limited to six months’
salary, at the rate of
his pay as applicable as at 27 June 2015.
5
Each party is to pay its
own costs.”
[2]
The First Respondent (SARU), has since
filed an application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court
against the whole of
the judgment and the above order. It is trite
that the test in determining whether leave to appeal should be
granted is whether
there is a reasonable prospect that another court
(in this case, the Labour Appeal Court), may come to a different
conclusion to
that reached by the Court whose judgment is sought to
be taken on appeal. It can further be accepted that amongst the
factors to
be considered with such application is whether the matter
is of substantial importance to the parties
[3]
I have had regard to the submissions made by or on behalf of SARU in
terms of Rule 30 (3A) of the Rules of this Court, and the
submissions
made in opposition to the application. Having had regard to the
issues raised by both parties, and in particular the
contentious
debates surrounding incompatibility and how the Courts must treat it,
and the importance of this matter to both parties,
I am of the view
that there are reasonable prospects that the Labour Appeal Court may
come to a different conclusion to that reached
in my judgment.
Order:
[4]
Accordingly, the following order is made;
1.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
2.
There is no order as to costs
___________________
E.
Tlhotlhalemaje
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa