South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) obo K Shongwe & 45 Others v Commissioner L Moloi N.O. and Others

SAMWU, acting on behalf of K Shongwe and 45 other employees of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department, disputed the City’s refusal to apply a 2008 collective settlement agreement on minimum salaries. The dispute, framed as one concerning the interpretation and application of the settlement agreement, was referred to the CCMA. At arbitration, the City raised a point in limine that the employees’ claims had prescribed, and that the CCMA therefore lacked jurisdiction. The arbitrator upheld the prescription point and dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction. SAMWU sought to review the jurisdictional ruling in the Labour Court, but prosecuted the review with substantial delay, including late filing of the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice and the record. The Labour Court initially found the arbitrator’s ruling to be manifestly wrong but ultimately dismissed the review due to the delay and refused condonation. SAMWU appealed to the Labour Appeal Court.

The appeal was upheld. The Labour Court’s order was set aside. The late filing of the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice and the delay in prosecuting the review were condoned. The arbitrator’s jurisdictional ruling dated 6 February 2014 was reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the prescription point in limine. The matter was referred back to the CCMA to be heard afresh by a different arbitrator. No costs order was made.

The case reaffirms the Labour Appeal Court’s approach that review applications under the LRA should not lightly be dismissed for delay, emphasising section 34 constitutional rights and the interests of justice. It clarifies that disputes about the interpretation and application of collective agreements are not ‘debts’ capable of prescription under the Prescription Act, and that arbitrators exceed their powers when deciding prescription of claims not properly before them.