For the sake of completeness I will, in due course, reproduce the constitutional clauses that the applicant is relying upon. [9] In a matter such as this it is easy to gravitate towards the merits of the case. It is imperative to avoid that temptation, because the merits are not for this court but for the Industrial Court to determine. Ours is to make an abstract determination, as it were, whether the words used in the facebook post do or do not fall within the exercise of constitutional rights by the applicant. There is, however, a threshold issue that has arisen and which requires preliminary interrogation. [10] In its opposing papers, heads of argument and during legal arguments the respondent submits that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter because it is “purely a labour dispute between an employer and an employee well capable of being resolved in terms of the legal principles of Labour Law.” 4 This is famously known as the exclusivity argument and it is based on Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Act as amended. In the same breath the respondent invokes the doctrine of avoidance and submits that the dispute is resolvable without the need to resort to constitutional provisions. On the basis of this, goes 4 Opposing Affidavit (OA), para 7 at p87 of Book of Pleadings (BoP). 9