Olivier v University of Venda
![handle is hein.journals/iljuta24 and id is 240 raw text is: 208 Olivier v University of Venda
Reeveas J (2003) 24 )LJ 208 (LC)
2 (a) The compensation referred to in para 4(iii) of the application for
default judgment shall be limited to a period of 12 months,
reckoned from 5 August 2000, being the date of the second
applicant's dismissal.
A (b) The costs associated with the hearing on 13 November 2002 are
disallowed.
B
OUVIER v UNIVERSITY OF VENDA
C
LABOUR COURT (J1775/02)
23 October 2002
Betore REVELAS J
D
CCMA arbitration proceedings-Award--Order of court (s 158(1)(c) of LRA
1995)-Application in terms of s 143 to stay effect of award-Established
practice for court not to make award order of court pending outcome of
application to review award-Factors considered by court.
CCMA arbitration proceedings-Award-Stay of effect of award (s 143 of LRA
1995)--Established practice for court not to make award order of court in
terms of s 158(1)(c) pending outcome of application to review award--
Factors considered by court.
F The Labour Court affirmed the established practice that when an application is
brought to stay the effect of an arbitration award pending the outcome of an
application to review the award, an application in terms of s 158(1)(c) of the
LRA 1995 to make an award an order of court is usually not granted. The
employee's financial predicament was not sufficient reason for the court to
G exercise a discretion to make the award an order of court and close the door
for a review of the award. The effect of the award was stayed.
Application to make an award an order of court. Counter-application to stay the
effect of the award. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.
H Annotations
Cases
Deutch v Pinto & another (1997) 18 ILJ 1008 (LC) (referred to)
Ntshangane v Speciality Metals CC (1998) 19 ILJ 584 (LC) (referred to)
Professional Security Enforcement v Namusi (1,999) 20 ILJ 1279 (LG) (referred to)
Statutes
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 s 143, s 145, s 158(l)(c)
RwEVELAS J:
[1] The applicant was dismissed by the respondent, following charges of
J alleged misconduct. The dismissal was upheld on appeal. The appli-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/iljuta24&div=36&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Olivier v University of Venda
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most