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

Mr Sizwe Myathaza was employed as a bus driver by Metrobus for seven years. He was suspended in September 2007 for receiving money without issuing tickets. In April 2008, Metrobus reached an agreement with unions that suspended employees would receive a final written warning if they pleaded guilty. Myathaza refused, insisting on a disciplinary inquiry. He was subsequently dismissed for being absent from work without permission in July 2008. An arbitrator found his dismissal both substantively and procedurally unfair in September 2009 and ordered his reinstatement with back pay. When Myathaza reported for duty, Metrobus turned him away, stating it would review the award. Metrobus instituted review proceedings on 21 October 2009 but did not set the matter down for hearing for over three years. In August 2013, Myathaza applied under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA to have the arbitration award made an order of the Labour Court. Metrobus opposed the application, arguing the award had prescribed after three years under the Prescription Act.

• Whether the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 applies to arbitration awards issued under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Whether an arbitration award requiring reinstatement constitutes a 'debt' under section 10 of the Prescription Act
• Whether the three-year prescription period under the Prescription Act applies to LRA arbitration awards
• Whether the LRA dispute resolution system is inconsistent with the Prescription Act under section 16 of the Prescription Act
• Whether instituting a review application interrupts the running of prescription

1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is upheld. 3. The orders of the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court are set aside and replaced with an order that the arbitration award issued on 17 September 2009 in favour of Mr Sizwe Myathaza is made an order of the Labour Court. 4. Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (SOC) Ltd t/a Metrobus is ordered to pay costs in the Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court and Constitutional Court, including costs of two counsel where applicable.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The Prescription Act 68 of 1969 does not apply to the LRA dispute resolution system concerning dismissal disputes because the two Acts are materially inconsistent as contemplated in section 16(1) of the Prescription Act. (2) The LRA establishes a self-contained, specialized dispute resolution framework designed to give expeditious effect to section 23 constitutional rights, while the Prescription Act envisages civil courts and longer time periods incompatible with the LRA's speedy resolution objectives. (3) Section 210 of the LRA provides that where conflict arises between the LRA and other legislation (save the Constitution), the LRA prevails. (4) An arbitration award under the LRA represents a final and binding administrative determination of a dispute, not a 'debt' awaiting judicial determination as contemplated in the Prescription Act. (5) Arbitration awards issued by the CCMA or bargaining councils constitute administrative action that resolves labour disputes rather than enforcement of debts. (6) The Labour Court retains jurisdiction under section 158(1)(c) to make an arbitration award an order of court regardless of time elapsed, subject only to the LRA's own framework and principles of reasonableness.

Jafta J observed that Metrobus, as an organ of state under section 7(2) of the Constitution obliged to respect, protect, promote and fulfill Bill of Rights, conducted itself in a manner not befitting an exemplary employer by putting the applicant through untold hardships and denying him livelihood for years despite conceding procedural unfairness. The judgment noted that section 145(9) of the LRA (enacted January 2015 providing that review applications interrupt prescription) does not apply to this case but appears to be Parliament's response to Labour Court decisions that had applied the Prescription Act. The Court did not express a final view on whether this provision indicates Parliamentary intent for the Prescription Act to apply. Jafta J lamented that the review application remained pending for seven years without being set down, calling this an example of delays that impose burdens on both employers and workers contrary to the LRA's expedited adjudication scheme. Zondo J observed that NEDLAC and Parliament may need to consider amending the LRA to expressly provide that the Prescription Act does not apply to the LRA dispute resolution system between dismissal and final judgment or order. The Court noted that Legal Aid South Africa's intervention enabled the applicant to bring his matter to the Constitutional Court, implicitly highlighting access to justice concerns.

This judgment is highly significant in South African labour law as it clarifies the relationship between the Prescription Act and the LRA dispute resolution system. The majority held that the Prescription Act does not apply to LRA arbitration awards, protecting employees' rights to enforce awards without the barrier of prescription running during review proceedings. The case reinforces the constitutional imperative of giving effect to section 23 rights to fair labour practices and the LRA's objective of speedy and cheap dispute resolution. It prevents employers from frustrating enforcement of awards by instituting review proceedings and then relying on prescription. The judgment recognizes the CCMA and bargaining councils as constitutional forums under section 34 and affirms that the LRA, as legislation giving effect to Bill of Rights guarantees, takes precedence over apartheid-era legislation like the Prescription Act where conflict arises. The case has practical importance for thousands of employees with arbitration awards, clarifying that they need not fear prescription while awaiting finalization of review proceedings or seeking to enforce awards.