THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JR2749/22
In the matter between:
INNOVATIVE STAFFING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR First Respondent
NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR Second Respondent
THE ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS Third Respondent
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS Fourth Respondent
ROAD FREIGHT ASSOCIATION Fifth Respondent
NATIONAL EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION OF SA Sixth Respondent
CONSOLIDATED EMPLOYERS ORGANISATION Seventh Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT Eighth Respondent
AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS Ninth Respondent
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORT & ALLIED Tenth Respondent
WORKERS UNION
TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Eleventh Respondent
2
Decided: In chambers
Date: 3 October 2025
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
DANIELS J
Introduction
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against my judgment handed down
on 3 April 2025.
Condonation
[2] The application for leave to appeal was delivered on 23 April and is two
days late. The reason for the delay was the applicant’s difficulties in
serving the application on all the respondents. The applicant managed to
serve the application on the respondents who participated in the hearing
by 16 April but could only serve on others on 23 April. The period of the
delay is short, and there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. On a
conspectus of all the relevant factors, it is in the interests of justice to
grant condonation. The late filing of the application for leave to appeal is
condoned.
Legal principles
[3] Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013 provides that
leave to appeal may only be given where the judge is of the opinion that
the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some
other compelling reason the appeal should be heard. Leave to appeal
should not be granted unless there is a sound and rational basis to
3
conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of success. 1 In Martin & East
(Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers & others 2 the court, per Davis
JA stated:
“This was a case which should have ended in the Labour Court. This
matter should not have come to this court. It stood to be resolved on its
own facts. There is no novel point of law to be determined nor did the
court a quo misinterpret existing law. There was no incorrect application
of the facts; in particular the assessment of the factual justification for
the dismissals/alternative sanctions. I would urge labour courts in future
to take great care in ensuring a balance between expeditious resolution
of a dispute and the rights of the party which has lost. If there is a
reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different
treatment or there is a legitimate dispute on the law, that is different. But
this kind of case should not reappear continuously in courts on appeal
after appeal, subverting a key purpose of the Act, namely the
expeditious resolution of labour disputes
.”
(Own emphasis)
Grounds for leave to appeal
[4] The applicant contends that there is a reasonable prospect of success that
another court would come to a different decision. It contends that this court
erred in the following respects:
4.1 The court erred by finding that the process conducted by the third
and fourth respondents were not in dispute.
1 MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another [2016] JOL 36940 (SCA) at paras 16 –
17
2 (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC) at 2406
4
4.2 The court conflated the decision to make a determination with the
certificate which reflects the outcome of the determination. The court
should have found that the certificate is not the determination.
4.3 The court erred in finding that the Minister’s powers are limited to
‘satisfying’ himself that a determination had been made.
4.4 The court erred in finding that it was permissible for the determination
to have been issued under the wrong section of the LRA.
4.5 The court erred by finding that there is no obligation on the Registrar
to have regard to public or independent sources of data.
4.6 The court erred in finding that the applicant had failed to make out a
case why the Registrar was required to invite submissions from non-
parties. The court erred in finding that there was no requirement for a
consultation process because the LRA did not require this.
4.7 The court erred by ordering the applicant to pay the costs of the
application.
[5] I have considered the grounds upon which the application is based,
together with the submissions filed by the first, third and fourth
respondents and the submissions filed by the second respondent . I align
myself with the submissions of the respondents, which I find compelling.
[6] In my view, the applicant fails to meet the high threshold for leave to
appeal. In my view, there are no prospects that another court would come
to a different decision. Accordingly, I must refuse leave to appeal.
5
Conclusion
[7] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to
costs.
RN Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa