Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case (C440/2010) involves Hotellica (the Union) seeking to dismiss a review application it filed in 2010 against an arbitration award by Commissioner Alviso Adams. The Union failed to comply with Labour Court Rule 7A for over three years, prompting the employer (Good Logistics Solutions) to file multiple applications. The Union eventually complied in July 2012 but did not file opposing papers, leading to the review application being dismissed with punitive costs on an attorney-client scale, including costs of hearings in March 2011, December 2011, and May 2013.
Issues
The court considered whether the applicant trade union's repeated failure to comply with Labour Court Rules, including not submitting required documents within stipulated timelines despite multiple court orders, constituted sufficient grounds to dismiss their review application against an arbitration award. The issue centered on procedural adherence in the context of a union's duty to represent its members.
Holdings
The court dismissed the Union's review application due to its failure to comply with Labour Court Rules, including not filing a record of proceedings as required. A punitive costs order was made against the Union, including attorney and client scale costs, and costs of counsel for the applications heard on 23 March 2011, 2 December 2011, and 31 May 2013. The Union was criticized for collecting subscription money without providing proper legal representation.
Remedies
The court dismissed the Union's review application with costs on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of counsel and the applications heard on 23 March 2011, 2 December 2011, and 31 May 2013.
Legal Principles
The court dismissed the review application with costs on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of multiple applications, due to the trade union's failure to comply with Labour Court Rules over an extended period.
Precedent Name
Nehawu v Vanderbijlpark Society for the Aged
Cited Statute
Labour Relations Act
Judge Name
- Savage, AJ
- Steenkamp, J
Passage Text
- THE REVIEW APPLICATION IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS ON AN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT SCALE, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF COUNSEL; SUCH COSTS TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF THE APPLICATIONS HEARD ON 23 MARCH 2011, 2 DECEMBER 2011, AND TODAY, 31 MAY 2013.
- The Union did eventually file a record but still did not comply with Rule 7A(8).
- A trade union should not purport to represent its members when it cannot do so competently. It is shocking that a trade union should collect subscription money from its members when it cannot provide a proper service to them.