Sneller Verbatim/mc
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J250/00
2001-06-29
In the matter between
CITY COUNCIL OF PRETORIA Applicant
and
J CAMPANELLA NO First Respondent
MISHAWU ON BEHALF OF D P MOTSTETSISecond Respondent
________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________________________________________________
REVELAS J:
1.This is an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995, (“the Act”), in terms of which the second
respondent, (MISHAWU) applies to have an arbitration award granted in
favour of the second respondent, made an order of court.
2.The applicant,(“the City Council of Pretoria”) or (“the Council”) have
previously launched an application for a review of the award but
abandoned the application.
3.The application is opposed on the basis that the award is unlawful in that
the City Council of Pretoria was not a party to the collective agreement
in terms of which dismissal disputes between the parties are determined
by way of arbitration under the auspices of IMSSA.
4.Therefore the collective agreement applicable did not apply to it.
Consequently there was no written agreement in terms of which the
arbitration took place.
5.Therefore the award constituted a common law award and the Labour Court,
according to the applicant's argument, did not have the necessary
jurisdiction to make the award an order of court.
6.There was also a point in limine taken that the application to have the
award made an order of court did not contain sufficient particularity in
support of the application in that the founding affidavit only makes
mention of the fact that the applicant, the City Council of Pretoria,
did not comply with the award. In my view, the point in limine has no
merit and is dismissed. No further particularity is required in the
applicants’ affidavit. The allegations contained in the founding
affidavit are sufficient to make out a proper case. The allegations
contained therein appear in many applications for the same relief, in
terms of which, this court daily grants orders.
7.Insofar as the common law argument is concerned, there is no merit in that
argument, either. The arbitration was conducted by the first respondent
and there was no objection to the arbitration process then. The
applicant was a willing party to that process. It is therefore a
voluntary arbitration.
8.Furthermore the arbitration concerned an alleged unfair dismissal and an
employment relationship. Therefore it should fall under the natural
jurisdiction of this court.
9.The applicant brought an application for review which it deliberately chose
not to persue.
10.In the circumstances I make the following order:
1.The award is made an order of court and the applicant (“the City Council of
Pretoria”) is to pay the second and third respondent's costs in this
matter.
________________
E. Revelas