South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,

JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable

Case no: JR1922-14

and JR 2085-14

In the matter between:

OTHUSITSE H RAPOO..........................................................................................................Applicant

And

KOBUS ERASMUS......................................................................................................First Respondent

SALGBC....................................................................................................................Second Respondent

RUSTENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY.............................................................Third Respondent

Heard: 25 May 2016

Delivered: 25 May 2016

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

WHITCHER J

[1] On 26 February 2014 the third respondent served the applicant with a notice to attend a disciplinary hearing to answer the charges of misconduct set out in the notice.

[2] The applicant responded thereto by filing an unfair labour practice and discrimination referral with the second respondent (the bargaining council) in which he articulated his dispute as follows.

[3] The acting manager of the third respondent is not properly appointed and authorised to act for the third respondent and therefore not authorised to institute disciplinary proceedings against me. The third respondent in instituting disciplinary proceedings failed to comply with the Collective Agreement on disciplinary procedures.

[4] The referral also contained complaints regarding the nature and timing of the charges against the applicant.

[5] The arbitrator correctly ruled that the bargaining council did not have jurisdiction over the complaint of the applicant and the dispute referred to the bargaining council. The application to review this ruling is accordingly dismissed with costs.

[6] When the applicant received the ruling, he made application to the bargaining council to rescind the ruling. The rescission application was effectively an application to review the jurisdictional ruling. It was accordingly an incompetent and misconceived application. The arbitrator correctly dismissed the rescission application. The application to review this ruling is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Order

[7] In the premises, the following order is made:

7.1 The application to review and set aside the rulings (dated 13 June 2014 and 22 July 2014) by the first respondent is dismissed with costs.

Whitcher J

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

APPEARANCES:

For applicant: Tau Khupari Attorneys For third respondent: