About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 213
|
|
Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUM and Others (JR2369-16) [2018] ZALCJHB 213 (20 June 2018)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
Not
of interest to other judges
Case
no: JR 2369-16
In
the matter between
GLENCORE
OPERATIONS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY)
LTD
APPLICANT
and
NUM
FIRST
RESPONDENT
MICHAEL
NKOMONYE
SECOND
RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSION FOR
CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
THIRD
RESPONDENT
M A MASHEGOANA N
O
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
Date
heard: In chambers:
Date
delivered: 20 June 2018
Summary:
Application for leave to appeal
JUDGMENT
– LEAVE TO APPEAL
COETZEE
AJ
[1]
In the
ex tempore
judgment with reasons of 3 May 2018 I
dismissed the applicant's review application.
[2]
The applicant on 17 May 2018 filed an application for leave to
appeal.
[3]
The application for leave to appeal sets out the various grounds of
appeal.
[4]
The applicant filed written submissions in support of the application
for leave to appeal.
[5]
The application for leave to appeal is unopposed.
[6]
I have considered the application for leave to appeal and the written
representations in chambers.
[7]
In terms of Rule 30 (2)
‘
If leave to appeal
has not been made at the time of judgment or order, an application
for leave must be made and the grounds for
appeal furnished within 15
days of the date of the judgment or order against which leave to
appeal is sought, except that the court
may, on good cause shown,
extend that period'
[8]
The application was made timeously.
[9]
Section 17
of the
Superior Courts Act, No 10 of 2013
regulates an
application for leave to appeal from a decision of a High Court. It
reads as follows:
'17. Leave to appeal.
—
(1) Leave to appeal may
only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion
that—
(
a
) (i) the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
(
b
) the decision
sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of
section
16
(2) (
a
); and
(
c
) where the
decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in
the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt
resolution of
the real issues between the parties'.
[10]
This
section also applies to applications for leave to appeal in the
Labour Court.
[1]
[11]
The Court
in
Mgezeni
Gasbat Nxumalo v the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical
Industry (NBCCI) and Others
[2]
conveniently summarised the approach to an application for leave to
appeal:
'The traditional
formulation of the test that is applicable in an application such as
the present requires the court to determine
whether there is a
reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different
conclusion to that reached in the judgment that
is sought to be taken
on appeal. As the respondents observe, the use of the word “would”
in
s17(1)(a)(i)
are indicative of a raising of the threshold since
previously, all that was required for the applicant to demonstrate
was that
there was a reasonable prospect that another court might
come to a different conclusion (see
Daantjie
Community and Others v Crocodile Valley Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd and
Another
(75/2008)
[2015] ZALCC 7
(28 July 2015). Further, this is not a test to be
applied lightly – the Labour Appeal Court has recently had
occasion to
observe that this court ought to be cautious when leave
to appeal is granted, as should the Labour Appeal Court when
petitions
are granted. The statutory imperative of the expeditious
resolution of labour disputes necessarily requires that appeals be
limited
to those matters in which there is a reasonable prospect that
the factual matrix could receive a different treatment or where there
is some legitimate dispute on the law (See the judgment by Davis, JA
in
Martin
and East (Pty) Ltd v NUM
(2014)
35
ILJ
2399
(LAC), and also
Kruger
v S
2014
(1) SACR 369
(SCA) and the ruling by Steenkamp, J in
Oasys
Innovations (Pty) Ltd v Henning and Another
(C
536/15, 6 November 2015) and also Seatlholo and Others v Chemical,
Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers' Union and
Others
[3]
.'
[12]
I do not intend to deal with each of the grounds of appeal
separately.
[13]
The applicant has not raised grounds other than those in the hearing
of the matter which matters were addressed in the reasons
for the
judgment.
[14]
In my view after careful consideration of the applicant's stated
grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions, there is
nothing
that persuades me that any appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success.
[15]
There are no other compelling reasons why leave to appeal should be
granted.
[16]
There is no reason why a cost order should be made in this
application.
[17]
I make the following order:
[17.1] The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[17.2] There is no order
as to costs.
________________
Faan
Coetzee
Acting
judge of the Labour Court
Representation:
For
the applicant: Considered in chambers
For
the Respondent: Considered in chambers
[1]
Section 151 of the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of 1995
[2]
JR1170 /2013 unreported
[3]
(2016) 37 ILJ 1485 (LC)