‘Meaningless Work’ Claim Fails: Court Strikes Former Museum Manager’s Urgent Bid

A former museum manager who accused his employer of unfairly sidelining him by failing to allocate meaningful work has had his urgent application struck from the Labour Court roll.

Acting Judge V Barthus ruled that the matter lacked urgency and removed it from the roll.

The Applicant

Moses Mthethwa approached the court seeking an order against the Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport and its head, Guy Redman.

He argued that the department’s ongoing failure to assign him duties appropriate to his position, experience, and managerial level amounted to an unfair labour practice and violated his right to fair labour practices.

He sought orders compelling the department to:

• Allocate him meaningful responsibilities

• Place him in a temporary position aligned with his qualifications

• Prevent disciplinary action or retaliation for refusing to remain underutilised

He claimed the situation caused psychological distress, humiliation, and damage to his professional reputation.

The Backstory

The case stems from events in February 2025, when Mthethwa was suspended after the board of the CP Nel Museum became aware of significant financial losses incurred while he was manager.

He challenged the suspension at the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC) , but an arbitrator ruled the suspension without pay was fair.

Mthethwa attempted to review the arbitration award in court and sought urgent reinstatement. In October 2025, the court struck that application due to lack of urgency. He later withdrew the review.

After returning to work, he wrote to the department seeking clarity about his duties and reporting lines. He later claimed he had not been given meaningful work and referred an unfair labour practice dispute to the bargaining council in December 2025. That dispute is still pending.

The Ruling

The court emphasised that urgent applications require applicants to act immediately when harm arises.

Judge Barthus found that Mthethwa had known about his duties since October 2025 but only launched the urgent application in February 2026a delay of several months.

The judge concluded that the urgency claim was self-created.

“An applicant who is aware of the harm he alleges to suffer, who takes no steps over a protracted period, and then launches an urgent application, is likely to have the application struck from the urgent roll.”

The Outcome

The application was struck from the roll, with no order as to costs.

The Bottom Line

Mthethwa may have a valid claim about being sidelined. But waiting months to act on it meant his urgency was his own making.

The court’s message: if it’s really urgent, act like it. Otherwise, get in line like everyone else.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com