Court or­der was right - Nurses

Observer on Saturday - - News -

In re­sponse, the nurses ar­gued that the In­dus­trial Court cor­rectly held that gov­ern­ment should sub­mit to CMAC for ar­bi­tra­tion.

Rep­re­sented by lawyer Mnakekeli Nd­langa­mandla of MLK Nd­langa­mandla At­tor­neys, the nurses ar­gued that there is only one route to re­port a dis­pute at CMAC and that is through com­plet­ing the re­port of dis­pute form pro­vided there, ar­gu­ing that it does not dis­tin­guish whether the dis­pute is re­ported by an es­sen­tial ser­vice un­der sec­tion 96 or none es­sen­tial ser­vice un­der sec­tion 76.

“There is none such ex­ist­ing this is where we fur­ther sub­mit that the In­dus­trial Court was not in er­ror when is­su­ing the or­der that gov­ern­ment should sub­mit to CMAC for ar­bi­tra­tion, we fur­ther sub­mit that the dif­fer­ence comes about once con­cil­i­a­tion is de­clared un­re­solved,” Nd­langa­mandla sub­mit­ted.

Nd­langa­mandla sub­mit­ted that in re­spect of this mat­ter, the re­spon­dent (SNA) made an at­tempt to rea­son with the min­istry of pub­lic ser­vice to con­sent to ar­bi­tra­tion us­ing the only form availed by CMAC com­pleted by par­ties who con­sent to ar­bi­tra­tion, how­ever same was turned down.

As op­posed to the ar­gu­ment ad­vanced by the ap­pli­cant herein, sec­tion 96 of the in­dus­trial re­la­tions act does not pro­vide a sep­a­rate route for re­port­ing a dis­pute nei­ther does it pro­vide spe­cial forms un­der such dis­pute of es­sen­tial ser­vices.

He sub­mit­ted that it is worth not­ing that the ap­pel­lant (gov­ern­ment) in the court aquo was sim­ply not ob­ject­ing to sub­mit­ting to ar­bi­tra­tion but sim­ply raised a faith is­sue against CMAC and that was it oth­er­wise they sim­ply con­ceded to the process and sub­mit­ted that in prin­ci­ple they had con­ceded to the process.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Swaziland

© PressReader. All rights reserved.