Myathaza v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (SOC) Limited t/a Metrobus and Others

The applicant, Mr Sizwe Myathaza, was employed as a bus driver by Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (Metrobus). After being suspended in 2007 for alleged irregular ticketing, Metrobus reached an agreement with unions allowing employees to avoid further discipline if they pleaded guilty and accepted a final written warning. Maintaining his innocence, Mr Myathaza refused and demanded a disciplinary inquiry. Metrobus proceeded with the inquiry in his absence and dismissed him in July 2008. An arbitration under the Labour Relations Act (LRA) found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement with retrospective effect and back pay. Although a supplementary award quantified back pay, Metrobus failed to comply and instead launched a review application, which it did not pursue to finality. Several years later, Mr Myathaza applied to the Labour Court to have the arbitration award made an order of court. Metrobus opposed, arguing that the award had prescribed under the Prescription Act after three years. The Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court agreed, holding that the award constituted a ‘debt’ that had prescribed. Mr Myathaza appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The orders of the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court were set aside and replaced with an order making the arbitration award of 17 September 2009 an order of the Labour Court. Metrobus was ordered to pay costs in the Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court, and Constitutional Court, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.

This case is a leading authority on the relationship between the Prescription Act and the Labour Relations Act. It clarifies that arbitration awards issued under the LRA do not prescribe under the Prescription Act, thereby protecting employees’ rights to enforce awards and reinforcing the integrity of the LRA’s specialised dispute-resolution framework. The judgment underscores the constitutional dimension of labour dispute resolution and affirms that statutory interpretation must promote access to justice and the effective enforcement of labour rights.