JOHANNESBURG – The Labour Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an urgent application brought by trade union Solidarity on behalf of a senior police officer seeking to block her temporary transfer out of the SAPS Mounted Services unit.

In a judgment handed down on 15 July, Acting Judge S.N. Snyman ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene directly in internal SAPS transfers, reprimanding public sector employees for attempting to bypass statutory dispute-resolution channels.

ALSO READ: Court slams TWK Finance Chief for wasting court time as municipality crumbles

The applicant, Colonel A.J. Botha-Viljoen, a 36-year veteran who has served in the Mounted Services environment since 2009, approached the court seeking an urgent interdict to halt her temporary placement at Proactive Policing Services. The dispute stemmed from a long-running operational rift between Botha-Viljoen and her second-in-command, Lt. Col GIK Pilane.

Daily operations severely disrupted by discord

The feud, which began late in 2024 following allegations regarding unreported incidents and financial irregularities, progressively escalated into mutual grievances, accusations of harassment, CCMA referrals, and acrimonious email exchanges. Despite the appointment of a multi-departmental task team to resolve the standoff, ongoing conflict over operational command, presidential escorts, and leave approvals continued to severely disrupt daily operations.

To preserve “labour peace” pending the task team’s final findings, SAPS management issued notices temporarily transferring both officers out of the unit with effect from 1 June. Botha-Viljoen refused to take up the post and launched urgent proceedings, alleging the transfer breached SSSBC Agreement 5 of 1999 and was unlawful.

‘Dispute does not properly belong in this court’

However, Acting Judge Snyman held that the Labour Court has no general jurisdiction under Section 157(1) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) to micromanage workplace disputes or interdict employer actions on the grounds of alleged unlawfulness. Citing established precedents, the court emphasised that LRA remedies are grounded in fairness rather than legality.

The court further rejected arguments that the matter fell under Section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) as a breach of contract. The judge noted that collective bargaining agreements cannot simply be incorporated into individual employment contracts to create a civil cause of action, nor can certain section powers be used to manufacture jurisdiction where none exists.

“The current practice of senior employees in the public service running to this court on an urgent basis … seeking to effectively manage employment relations in the state … must stop,” Acting Judge Snyman stated, affirming that the dispute properly belonged before a bargaining council or the CCMA.

Finding the application to be an abuse of court process, the Labour Court dismissed the application and ordered Solidarity to pay the respondents’ legal costs on a party-and-party Scale B.