LABOUR LAW – INTERPRETATION OF ARBITRATION AWARD READ WITH LABOUR COURT ORDER

LABOUR LAW – INTERPRETATION OF ARBITRATION AWARD READ WITH LABOUR COURT ORDER

The first respondent was employed by the applicant until he was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing and he filed a complaint with the Office of the Labour Commissioner claiming that he was unfairly dismissed. The arbitrator held that the dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered that the first respondent be reinstated and compensated for his loss including benefits. On 15 January 2019, the respondent made the arbitration award an order of the Labour Court. The applicant was aggrieved by the award, and on 03 May 2019, appealed to the Labour Court against the arbitrator’s award. On 07 August 2019, the Labour Court handed down its judgment, and dismissed the appeal, and amended the arbitrator’s award for the payment of the respondent’s monthly salary.

The parties were at odds as to the interpretation of the arbitration award read with the order of the Labour Court, and ultimately what the respondent’s entitlements were. The respondent had a writ issued for the attachment of the applicant’s movable property.  Thus in May 2021, the applicant approached the High Court on an urgent basis seeking to interdict and restrain any further attachments of his property (part A of the application), and certain declarations as to the entitlements now owed to the first respondent (part B).  The relief sought in part A was granted on 23 August 2021.

UEITELE J had to consider whether the applicant was entitled to the relief contained in part B of the urgent application. The court found:

1. Once a court has duly pronounced final judgment or order, it has no authority to correct, alter or supplement it (functus officio). There are exceptions to that rule.
2. In the present matter the applicant did not approach the court to seek seeking clarification of its judgment, but to seek a declarator.
3. The applicant failed to demonstrate that on a proper interpretation, the meaning of the order or judgment was obscure, ambiguous, or otherwise uncertain.

For that reason, the applicant’s application was dismissed.

Fisheries Observer Agency v Evenson NAHCMD 4 August 2022