ANDRE LUDIK BARTLETT v ANASTASIA BUKASHE (LC). Summary: Urgent
interdict – setting aside an attachment of goods of a party not
liable in terms of the order. Assets of Trustees cannot be attached
to satisfy the debts of the Trust. Held: (1) The application for
interdict is granted (2) The first respondent is to pay the costs (3)
The Registrar and the Secretary of the Law Society are directed to
launch an investigation.
UNITRANS PASSENGER (PTY) LTD t/aMEGABUS & COACH vAMCU (LC).
Urgent interdict- strike alleged to be in contravention of the
provisions of the LRA – employees made an election to resort to
collective bargaining as opposed to claiming unfair labour practice.
Strike is a constitutional right of employees exercisable at the
choice of the employees. Held: (1) The application for interdict is
dismissed. Held: (2) The applicant to pay the respondents' costs.
BUSINESS UNITY SOUTH AFRICA v THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(LC). Summary: A review in terms of the provisions of the Promotion
of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) ought to be determined in terms
of the provisions of PAJA. Promulgation of Regulations is an
administrative action within the contemplation of PAJA. The
administrative action by the Minister is not reviewable in terms of
PAJA. Exercise of public function contemplated in section 36 of the
SDA does not offend the principle of legality and it is not a
decision that a decision maker may not arrive at. A court of review
under PAJA can only substitute, vary or correct in exceptional
circumstances. Held (1). The application for review is dismissed with
NYLIN COLIN VAN STADEN v TELKOM SA (SOC) LIMITED (LC). A referral
in terms of section 191 of the LRA.
It remains the duty of an employer to avoid a no-fault dismissal.
Where the selection criterion is not agreed upon by the consulting
parties, the employer is obliged to employ a fair and objective
criteria. Placement of employees to vacant position is not a
selection method contemplated in section 189 (7) of the LRA. It
becomes the duty of a court to scrutinize the criteria employed in
order to determine two aspects: fairness and objectivity. A court
cannot defer to an employer with regard to fairness and objectivity
of a selection criteria employed. A court engages in a two-stage
enquiry. Firstly, to examine whether the criterion selected is fair
and objective? Secondly, to determine whether the criterion is
applied fairly and objectively. Dismissal for operational
requirements is a no-fault dismissal and should be used as a last
resort. Where an employer has vacant positions at the time of
dismissal, it cannot be said that dismissal is the measure of last
M E NYAMANE v THE MEC: FREE STATE DEPARTMENT (LC). Summary: An
application to review and set aside a decision not to approve
re-instatement of the applicant who was deemed discharged by the
operation of law. The requirements of good cause shown considered.
The Labour Appeal Court's decision in MEC for the Department of
Health Western Cape v Weder
considered in line with what was said in De Villiers v Head of
Department: Education Western Cape Province
and applied. Held: (1) The review application is granted and the
matter remitted to the first respondent. Held: (2) There is no order
as to costs.
INTERNATIONAL LTD AND 15 OTHERS v SACCAWU (LC). Summary: Return day –
Final order sought to interdict a strike action. Where the demand is
an issue regulated by a collective agreement and or the provisions of
the LRA – employees prohibited to strike. Duty of the court to
determine what the true dispute is – if the dispute as determined
falls within those upon which employees may not strike terms of a
collective agreement – strike is unprotected. Held: (1) The Rule
nisi is discharged Held: (2) Each party to pay its own costs.