Absa Bank Ltd v Wabile NO and Others (JR2999/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 278 (22 July 2014)

Absa Bank Ltd v Wabile NO and Others (JR2999/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 278 (22 July 2014)

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because the third respondent was, in substance, employed by the applicant. The employment relationship was established through the terms of the service contract, the applicant's control over the third respondent, and the renewals of the contract on the applicant's letterhead. The third respondent had a reasonable expectation of renewal based on the applicant's conduct and communications, and the non-renewal constituted a dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the LRA. The court held that the first respondent did not commit any reviewable irregularity by not determining jurisdiction in limine and that the...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 278
Parties
Applicant: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: Katlholo Wabile N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: John Amiradakis; Respondent: Alas Agisa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Case Number
JR2999/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Ngako
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Relationship Jurisdiction of Ccma Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Applicant

Katlholo Wabile N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

John Amiradakis

Respondent

Alas Agisa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the applicant and the third respondent.
  2. 2 Whether an employment relationship existed between the applicant and the third respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because the third respondent was, in substance, employed by the applicant. The employment relationship was established through the terms of the service contract, the applicant's control over the third respondent, and the renewals of the contract on the applicant's letterhead. The third respondent had a reasonable expectation of renewal based on the applicant's conduct and communications, and the non-renewal constituted a dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the LRA. The court held that the first respondent did not commit any reviewable irregularity by not determining jurisdiction in limine and that the...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.