Sneller Verbatim/YvA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS63/03
2003-02-07
In the matter between
SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNICATIONS UNION 1st Applicant
2nd Applicant
and
TFMC (PTY) LIMITED Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. The second applicant, a member of the first applicant,
brought an application, seeking a rule nisi to be issued
for a decelerator to the extent that:
"The actions and intended actions of the respondent
constitutes an occupational detriment as intended by the
Protected Disclosures Act, (Act 26 of 2000), section (3)."
2. The applicants further seek an order interdicting and
restraining the respondent from, and I quote:
3. "Implementing intended actions and refraining (sic) the
respondent from continueing with actions as set out in the
founding affidavit that will constitute occupational
detriment in that the provisions of section (3) of the
Protected Disclosures act (Act 26 of 2000) had not been
complied with."
4. The facts, which I may mention are rather few and which
gave rise to the applicants bringing this application is
briefly that the second applicant was instructed or
requested by someone from the respondent, to go home.
This happened approximately two weeks ago. The second
applicant has been at home for the last two weeks.
Apparently the applicant had made allegations or
disclosures regarding fraudulent conduct or corruption
amongst the senior management members of the respondent.
He had been asked by the respondent to give further
details relating to his allegations. He seeks full
immunity to make disclosure and alleges that he has not
been given full disclosure as members of management of
the respondent, consistently requested for more
information.
5. For all I know, this could be a matter where the
applicant has made scurrilous allegations against members
of management and steps are being taken to discipline
him. One simply does not know because there are not
enough facts to support the very wide relief sought by
the applicant. Furthermore, even if there were facts,
the relief sought by the applicant is too wide and
unspecific.
6. The first applicant's representative informed me that
there is a draft order which is more specific. However,
this was not served on the respondent, and it is simply
in no party's interest, particularly not that of the
respondent, to be brought to court on 24 hours’ notice
and then to be faced with a completely different case to
meet with no further facts to support even the amended
notice of motion or draft order seeking the different
relief.
7. Regarding the question of urgency, it might be that the
matter has become urgent, due to the fact that the
representative of the second applicant attempted to
resolve whatever the situation was with the respondent
and to clarify the second applicant's position. But it
could be that the urgency was created by the second
applicant's representatives.
8. The applicants have alternative remedies. This dispute
could have been referred to the Commission for
Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration in the normal
course. This has not been done. The applicant could
also be compensated for any unfairness perpetrated
against him. At this stage there has not even yet been a
dismissal. In the circumstances the application is
dismissed.
9. However, the applicants are not precluded from
approaching this court again on proper papers, seeking
proper relief in connection with this matter.
10.In so far as costs are concerned, the second applicant
and first applicant were advised by a labour consultant
who is unknown to me and is not a party to this court.
He clearly advised the applicants rather poorly. Through
their poor advice, the respondent was required to come to
court, instruct counsel and it is not the respondent's
fault that the applicants were ill advised as described
by Mr Volschenk.
11.In the circumstances the application is dismissed with
costs.
________________
E. Revelas