3.3_Case update by Benita Whitcher.pdf
3.3_Case update by Benita Whitcher.pdf
3.3_Case update by Benita Whitcher.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Interdicting disciplinary proceedings<br />
and suspensions<br />
SAMWU obo Abrahams & others v City of Cape Town [2008] 7 BLLR 700 (LC)<br />
– LC may intervene & interdict internal disciplinary proceedings in “exceptional<br />
circumstances”.<br />
– Exceptional circumstances in casu were: a large number of EEs were facing serious<br />
allegations ll ti off misconduct i d t th thatt could ld result lt iin di dismissal i l andd th the di disciplinary i li procedure d<br />
the ER intended to use was in violation of a CA.<br />
However:<br />
Booysen v SAPS & another [2008] 10 BLLR 928 (LC)<br />
– LC did not have jurisdiction to intervene in, review or interdict internal disciplinary<br />
proceedings.<br />
– LRA designed to allow EEs to challenge the fairness of dismissals at CCMA/BCs; not to<br />
obtain relief directly from the LC.<br />
– s 191 & 193 [LRA] [ ] -onlyy the CCMA/BCs / have jurisdiction j to determine the procedural p<br />
and substantive fairness of dismissals for misconduct.<br />
– LC does not have a ‘roving power to correct any injustice outside of the specific areas<br />
in which it was given jurisdiction’.
Change language