TASWU obo Legodi & Others v E.T van Kerken N.O. and Others

The applicant trade union, TASWU, referred an alleged unfair retrenchment dispute on behalf of unnamed members to the South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council. The referral form was sparsely completed: it did not identify the employees involved, provided minimal factual detail, and stated only that section 189 of the Labour Relations Act had been applied without proper consultation. At the conciliation hearing, none of the affected employees appeared in person. The panellist ruled that, in the interests of fairness, the bargaining council should not conciliate the dispute due to the lack of particularity and unidentified employees, and further held that the council lacked jurisdiction because the employees failed to appear in person as required by the council’s constitution. The union sought review of this ruling in the Labour Court.

The jurisdictional ruling of the first respondent was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the panellist to make an appropriate ruling, taking into account the employees’ failure to attend conciliation and the union’s failure to properly identify the members involved. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the distinction between jurisdiction and procedural fairness in labour dispute resolution. It confirms that failure by employees to attend conciliation does not deprive a bargaining council of jurisdiction, while also emphasising that trade unions must provide sufficient detail and identify represented members to enable effective conciliation. The judgment reinforces minimum informational requirements for dispute referrals in collective labour disputes.