Is the Labour Court to blame for delays?

With cases piling at the Labour Court due to lack of clarity of the law on what the Labour Court should do, many labour consultants argue that the Labour Court could be asking for problems by deliberately avoiding to read the law correctly, while others argue that litigants have not presented pertinent arguments to assist the Labour Court interpret the ambiguous provisions of the Amendment Labour Act number 5 of 2015 of section 93(5) which I shall refer to as the latter provisions in this article.


The argument that Labour Court Judges are afraid of “getting out of the crowd” is gathering momentum as Labour Consultants view the efforts being made by the Labour Court to “sanitise” the Amended Act as irregular given that the business of sanitising legislation rests with parliament and the Labour Court’s business is to read the law and not import High Court rules to the Labour Court or craft regulations to “sanitise” defects of section 93 (5) of the Labour Act. While some have argued that the Labour Court is within its legal rights to “sanitise” defective legislation or to amend rules to talk to amendments. The big debate relates to what is the correct reading of the law.


My reading of the law relating to the present challenges of having two live section 93(5) is that the provisions of the Labour Act Amendment number 5 of 2015 present a legal problem as to which one is applicable. The original provisions read. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE: is-the-labour-court-to-blame-for-delays