Sssbc Agreements 2019

[23] Comparisons maile vs. FOSKOR (Pty) Ltd (JR1148/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 71 (2 April 2019) in paragraph 30.4. [12] (JR 2160/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 39 (5). Also compare City of Cape Town v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (2014) 35 ILJ 163 (LC) at paragraphs 24 to 27 [21] However, it is still necessary and important for the Court of Justice to consider and consider the merits of the case in the decision, which is reasonable. [6] In Herholdt/Nedbank Ltd and Another[7], the Court of Justice stated: [17] . Finally, I would like to say that a non-party does not have a dispute within the meaning of section 24 of the Act. Since workers are generally not partisan but beneficiaries, I do not think they can refer a dispute within the meaning of Article 24. “In interviews with the unit`s commanders, it became clear that members are employed during operations, whether or not they are qualified operators. Unit Commanders is however familiar with the fact that members must be trained in preliminary courses in the third year in STF. By sending new STF members with qualified operators, these members tend to argue that they perform the same function and that they are also exposed to life-threatening circumstances as members who are qualified and receive limited qualification compensation. They therefore seek payment of the limited qualification indemnity” (sic) [12] Assuming that the third defendant had the required jurisdiction, I believe that the accuracy of the arbitral award is correct.

I think that the test applicable in this regard is a test of accuracy, unlike adequacy. Nevertheless, a legally erroneous attribution does not miss the adequacy. For Du Preez to be entitled to the collective agreement, all the requirements of the collective agreement must be met. The appointment must be made by a person who is full of work. Clause 1 of the agreement provides that the person who is in office must be a Deputy Commissioner, a high-level official or a territorial delegate. Brigadier Botha is not one of them. The position must be vacant and funded. Major General Khunou hinted, a few days after the Brigadier`s appointment, that the position did not exist. There was no evidence of Du Preez, who bore the full burden that the post was funded. The act must not be performed for a period exceeding twelve months.

Based on the assertion confirmed by the third respondent, Du Preez acted for a period of approximately 2 years. [19] The third respondent also considered that the “situation could have been different” if the Claimant had had her efforts in mind to recover the meagre staff qualification allowances she claimed to have completed. In conclusion of the statement of reasons for its arbitral award, the third respondent decided that the first person entitled to the payment of the limited qualification indemnity as of December 18, 2010, on the basis of the following: [7] The applicant raised two points relevant to the jurisdiction assumed by the third respondent. The first was raised late. A recall can be raised at any time before the stop. Since the third respondent did not issue a certificate of non-dissolution within the meaning of Article 135(2) of the LRA, it does not have jurisdiction to settle the dispute. It was based on the judgments of the Constitutional Court of September and Intervale. . . .

Comments are closed.