“Where a person in truly extraordinary circumstances … approaches the Labour Court on the basis that a disciplinary inquiry was, for instance, about to commence or was being conducted in the hands of a biased or unqualified presiding officer, or on another factual basis so serious as to vitiate in law the inquiry, I have little doubt that the Labour Court would in law exercise these powers to stop it”.
“In his reasons, Cheadle, AJ stresses the lack of an inherent jurisdiction in the Labour Court, a creature of statute (in contradistinction to the High Court). … he holds that the Labour Court ‘does not have an ail-embracing jurisdiction over the employer-employee relationship’”.
“As already indicated, that has to be accepted as a truism … . But with respect, that is not the point. It does not address the fact that unfairness in the dismissal process is a ‘matter’ which the LRA clearly regulates”.
These are extracts from the judgment of Gauntlett AJ in Mortimer v Municipality of Stellenbosch [GF 8450], case 18243/08 dated 27.11.2008, and are referred to with approval by Tlaletsi JA in a recent unanimous judgment of the Labour Appeal Court – see Booysen v Minister of Safety and Security [GF 8449] unreported case CA09/08 dated 1.10.2010
The LAC upheld the employee’s appeal against the judgment of Cheadle AJ in Booysen v SAPS (South African Police Service) [GF 7198] [2008] 10 BLLR 928; (2009) 30 ILJ 301 (LC) where he had held that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction based on section 157(1), read with section 185 to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings.
The LAC also refers to a judgment of Van Niekerk J in Jiba v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development (GF 7837) [2009] 10 BLLR 989; (2010) 31 ILJ 112 (LC) where he did not agree with the judgment of Cheadle AJ. What is surprising is that the LAC, in its latest judgment, refers to that judgment as unreported and was unaware that it had been reported some time ago.