National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another (J324/97) [1999] ZALC 157 (11 October 1999) Download original files. PDF format. RTF format. Bookmark/share this page. … Ltd v NUMSA (1998) 11 BLLR 1110 (LAC), I do not share that view.
Based on the non-referral of the dispute for conciliation and relying on the judgment of this Court in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd (‘ Driveline ’), Intervalve and BHR aver that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between NUMSA and them. In Driveline, Zondo AJP . . . with Mogoeng AJA . . . concurring held that:, Court in NUMSA v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd and another 2000 (4) SA 645 (LAC). The Constitutional Court said the following: The reasoning of the Driveline majority is, in my view, convincing. Section 191 (5) stipulates one of two preconditions before the dispute can be referred to the Labour Court, Based on the non-referral of the dispute for conciliation and relying on the judgment of this Court in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd (“ Driveline ”), Intervalve and BHR aver that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between NUMSA and them. In Driveline, Zondo AJP (as he then was) with Mogoeng AJA (as he then was) concurring.
In NUMSA & Others v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Limited & Another (2000) 21 ILJ 142 (LAC) it was held that “a pre-arbitration agreement is a consensual document which binds the parties and obliges the Court to decide only the issues therein”. It is therefore in line with the Driveline Technologies decision that I find that the Applicant …
Court in NUMSA v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd5 to say the parties are not bound by the manner in which the conciliated Commissioner characterised the dispute on the certificate of outcome. He also followed the authority of this court in Bombardier6 that a certificate of.
See in this regard the remarks of Conradie JA in the case of NUMSA v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd (unreported judgment, case number J324/97) in his minority judgment, paragraph 8. I will however assume for the purpose of my judgment in this matter that non-compliance is a jurisdictional issue.
The Constitutional Court is not bound by Driveline but the complication arises from its earlier judgment in NUMSA v Intervalve & Others when the legal position articulated in Driveline was upheld. In September the majority do not explain properly why, having endorsed Driveline in Intervalve ,.
[4] NUMSA v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd & another [2000] 1 BLLR 20 (LAC). “The Act does contemplate that the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute even when there has been no meaningful conciliation in respect of such a dispute. This is supported by the fact that section 191(5) of the Act contemplates, among others, that a dispute may be referred to arbitration or adjudication if the.
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Driveline Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another (J324/97) [1999] ZALC 157 (11 October 1999) REQUEST TO REMOVE National Union Of Metalworkers Of (SA) in Port Elizabeth …
