IMATU Successfully Defends 265 Employees in Landmark Labour Court Judgment
Dihlabeng Local Municipality v SALGBC and Others (Case No. JR38/2024)
IMATU is pleased to share another significant Labour Court victory involving the Dihlabeng Local Municipality, following closely on the heels of the earlier judgment in Dihlabeng Local Municipality v Mofokeng and Others (J190/23).
Both cases arise from the Municipality’s long-standing reliance on fixed-term contract employees and its repeated attempts to evade the resulting legal obligations. While the first matter (J190/23) concerned five fixed-term employees, this latest case represents an even larger and more consequential challenge, an attempt to undermine the protections afforded to 265 employees through a binding SALGBC Divisional Collective Agreement.
What the Municipality Attempted to Do
The Municipality sought to have clause 18.1 of the SALGBC Divisional Collective Agreement declared unlawful. This clause, in effect since 2016, requires that positions which are by their nature permanent must be filled on a permanent basis.
Instead of following the proper exemption process within the SALGBC, the Municipality approached the Labour Court claiming that:
- Clause 18.1 conflicted with the Municipal Systems Act;
- Its own Employment Practice Policy should override the collective agreement; and
- It could not afford to convert 265 fixed-term employees to permanent appointments.
Key Findings of the Labour Court
The Court dismissed the application in its entirety, with several strong findings against the Municipality:
- Procedurally defective application: Major defects in its Notice of Motion could not be “repaired” in reply.
- Fatal Non-joinder: The Municipality sought orders affecting 265 fixed-term employees without identifying or joining them, denying them the right to be heard.
- Failure to join other municipalities: Any ruling on clause 18.1 would impact all municipalities covered by the agreement, not only Dihlabeng.
- Incorrect Forum: The Labour Court cannot grant exemptions from Divisional Collective Agreements. This must be done through the SALGBC’s established processes.
- Unreasonable delay: The Municipality challenged a clause that had been in force for 7 to 8 years, without explanation.
- Substantive claim rejected: The Court reaffirmed that the Municipality’s prolonged use of fixed-term contracts was inconsistent with section 198B of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, and it could not now avoid the consequences of its own conduct.
Costs Awarded Against the Municipality
The Court issued an adverse cost order, directing the Municipality to pay IMATU’s legal costs, including counsel’s fees. The Court criticised:
- The fundamentally defective nature of the application;
- Attempts to shift the case mid-litigation;
- Failure to join affected employees; and
- Years of unjustifiable delay.
This costs award underscores the Court’s strong disapproval of how the Municipality conducted the litigation.
This judgment is reportable and reinforces critical labour principles:
- Collective agreements are binding.
- Municipalities cannot avoid their obligations through prolonged use of fixed-term contracts.
- Proper processes, including joinder and SALGBC mechanisms, must be followed.
IMATU welcomes this judgment, which safeguards the rights of hundreds of employees and strengthens the integrity of the collective bargaining framework in local government.
The full judgment is available here:
