[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-502273-105":59,"doc-detail-502273-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","arbitration-award-panellist-ronnie-bracks-case-pshs178-1213","ARBITRATION AWARD - Panellist Ronnie Bracks - Case PSHS178-12/13","","Arbitration award detailing a dispute between SAEPU on behalf of Kabai MS and 120 employees and the Department of Health–Mpumalanga. The hearing addresses the appropriate remedy for an unfair labour practice following a Labour Court order that set aside an earlier arbitration award and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator. The record reviews scheduling, representation, compliance with agreed heads of argument timelines, and the evidence summarized from the proceedings.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/arbitration-award-panellist-ronnie-bracks-case-pshs178-1213/502273/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/arbitration-award-panellist-ronnie-bracks-case-pshs178-1213/502273.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Damian","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-14","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the arbitrator need to decide in this remitted arbitration?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The arbitrator must determine the appropriate remedy for the unfair labour practice directed by the Labour Court order dated 1 November 2016.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why was the matter remitted to a different arbitrator?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the earlier arbitration award and substituted it, then remitted the matter to the first respondent for a different arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the parties proceed with heads of argument after the scheduling dispute?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"After debate, it was agreed that both parties would be addressed via heads of argument on set dates: applicants submit their heads on 17 February, the respondent respond on 10 March, and final submissions are due on 13 March 2017.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},502273,1791172892,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},137451208677,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","ARBITRATION AWARD  \nPanellist: Advocate Ronnie Bracks  \nCase No.: PSHS178-12/13  \nDate of Award: 22 April 2017  \nIn the matter between:  \nSAEPU obo Kabai MS and 120 others (Employee)  \nand  \nDepartment of Health-Mpumalanga (Respondent)  \nDETAILS OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION  \n1. The Arbitration was scheduled for hearing at the Respondent’s premises at its boardroom in Emalahlenion 10 February 2017 . The Applicants were represented Adv. MJ Molapo instructed by Baloyi Masango Attorneys while the Respondent was represented by Reckson Khoza – Director Labour Relations. The proceedings were recorded both manually and electronically.  \nISSUE TO BE DECIDED  \n2 I need to determine the appropriate remedy for the unfair labour practice as directed by an order of the Labour Court under the hand of Honourable Judge Whitcher dated 1 November 2016 .  \nBACKGROUND TO THE ISSUE  \n3 The matter was referred for review by the Labour Court in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. It was unopposed. The only issue the court had to determine was if the Applicants were entitled toa hearing prior to them being granted the sanction of unpaid suspension for engaging in an unprotected strike.  \n4 On 1 November 2016 the court granted the following order:  \n• The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case PSHS178-12/13 is reviewed and set aside.  \n• The award is substituted with an award that the third respondent committed an unfair labour practice.  \n• The matter is remitted to the first respondent for a different arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy for the unfair labour practice.  \n5 The matter was set down for hearing as mentioned above when the Respondent indicated that it was not aware of the Court Order and the last they heard was that the matter was still on review and hence they were not ready to proceed. I provided it with the order.  \n6 The Respondent’s attention was drawn to the fact that the matter was remitted to be heard by a new commissioner to determine an appropriate remedy. Further that this was an aspect which could be addressed by way of Heads of Argument.  \n7 After a brief debate it was agreed that I would be addressed via heads of argument to be exchanged between the parties on the following dates:-  \n• 17 February-Applicants to submit their heads.  \n• 10 March-Respondent is to respond (this time is to allow the Respondent to consult as it only became aware of the Order at this hearing) .  \n• Final submissions to be done on the 13 March 2017.  \n8 At the time of writing the award only the Applicant had complied with the above dates. It needs to be stated however that the Respondent had filed a Rescission application in the matter on 24 February 2017.  \n9 As the Respondent has failed to comply with the above agreed timeframes without any plausible explanation for its failure I am accordingly proceeding with the award.  \n10 I have considered all the submissions, but because the LRA requires brief reasons (section 138(7)), I have only referred to the evidence and argument that I regard as necessary to substantiate my findingsand the determination of the dispute.  \nSURVEY OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT  \nEVIDENCE  \nDocumentary  \n11 The order of court was submitted.  \n** As noted previously the proceedings were digitally recorded therefore what appears hereunder constitutes a summary of the evidence deduced by the parties in so far as is relevant for the purpose of this arbitration; it is by no means a minute of what transpired in the course of the proceedings.  \nEmployee’s Evidence:  \nSummary of Employees’ Heads of Argument  \n12 The Applicant submitted that:  \n13 It is trite that a collective agreement has the legal effect of forming part of each employee’s contract of employment if it is applicable to them.  \n14 Resolution 1 of 2003 applied to all the applicants to this dispute during 2012 and as such the applicants expected in advance that the respondent would treat them in accordance therewith before a","cbCaidevqwuLGR4p","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidevqwuLGR4p","pdf",246102,11,"English","# Details of Hearing and Representation\n# Issue to be Decided\n# Background to the Issue\n# Survey of Evidence and Argument\n## Evidence\n## Employee’s Evidence","[{\"question\":\"What does the arbitrator need to decide in this remitted arbitration?\",\"answer\":\"The arbitrator must determine the appropriate remedy for the unfair labour practice directed by the Labour Court order dated 1 November 2016.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the matter remitted to a different arbitrator?\",\"answer\":\"The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the earlier arbitration award and substituted it, then remitted the matter to the first respondent for a different arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the parties proceed with heads of argument after the scheduling dispute?\",\"answer\":\"After debate, it was agreed that both parties would be addressed via heads of argument on set dates: applicants submit their heads on 17 February, the respondent respond on 10 March, and final submissions are due on 13 March 2017.\"}]","ARBITRATION AWARD - Panellist Ronnie Bracks - Case PSHS178-12/13 | PDF",1791030867,28]