Auto Industrial Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v CCMA and Others; MIBCO v CCMA and Others (PR3/18;PR50/18) [2018] ZALCPE 41; [2019] 4 BLLR 371 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 550 (LC) (1 November 2018)

Auto Industrial Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v CCMA and Others; MIBCO v CCMA and Others (PR3/18;PR50/18) [2018] ZALCPE 41; [2019] 4 BLLR 371 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 550 (LC) (1 November 2018)

The court found that the commissioner committed a material error of law by treating the 1962 demarcation determination as binding, despite its basis in repealed legislation and its lack of incorporation into the current registered scopes of MEIBC and MIBCO. The commissioner failed to apply the correct legal test, which required determining whether the applicants' businesses fell within the definition of 'motor industry' in MIBCO's scope, based on the outcome of their manufacturing activities rather than the process. The uncontested evidence showed that the applicants' businesses are almost entirely dedicated to automotive components and form an integral part of the motor industry value...

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 41
Parties
Applicant: Auto Industrial Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Auto Industrial Foundry Division; Applicant: Autocast South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Autocast South Africa (Pty) Ltd Aluminium; Applicant: Borbet SA (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Dana Spicer Axle South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: MW Wheels SA (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: SP Metal Forgings Bokbsburg (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: SP Metal Forgings Uitenhage (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Torre Automotive (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: ZF Lemforder SA (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Malben Engineering CC; Applicant: MIBCO; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Feizal Fataar, N.O.; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: Solidarity; Respondent: UASA; Respondent: MEIBC; Respondent: SAACSA; Respondent: Widney Transport Components (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ramsay Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Euro Metal Finishes (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Auto Industrial Machining Division; Respondent: Isando Foundry Division; Respondent: Hubco Forgings Division
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2018
Case Number
PR3/18;PR50/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review Applications
Outcome
The award of the commissioner was reviewed and set aside. The applicants are demarcated into the Motor Industry Bargaining Council (MIBCO). The cross-review and conditional cross-review were dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Bargaining Council Demarcation, Scope of Registration, Error of Law, Collective Bargaining Structures, Value Chain Analysis
Labour Law Administrative Law Bargaining Council Demarcation Scope of Registration Error of Law Collective Bargaining Structures Value Chain Analysis

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auto Industrial Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Auto Industrial Foundry Division

Applicant

Autocast South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Autocast South Africa (Pty) Ltd Aluminium

Applicant

Borbet SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dana Spicer Axle South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

MW Wheels SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SP Metal Forgings Bokbsburg (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SP Metal Forgings Uitenhage (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Torre Automotive (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

ZF Lemforder SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Malben Engineering CC

Applicant

MIBCO

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Feizal Fataar, N.O.

Respondent

NUMSA

Respondent

Solidarity

Respondent

UASA

Respondent

MEIBC

Respondent

SAACSA

Respondent

Widney Transport Components (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ramsay Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Euro Metal Finishes (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Auto Industrial Machining Division

Respondent

Isando Foundry Division

Respondent

Hubco Forgings Division

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner was correct in demarcating the applicant companies within the scope of the MEIBC rather than MIBCO.
  2. 2 Whether the 1962 demarcation determination remains binding under the current Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed a material error of law by treating the 1962 determination as binding.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner committed a material error of law by treating the 1962 demarcation determination as binding, despite its basis in repealed legislation and its lack of incorporation into the current registered scopes of MEIBC and MIBCO. The commissioner failed to apply the correct legal test, which required determining whether the applicants' businesses fell within the definition of 'motor industry' in MIBCO's scope, based on the outcome of their manufacturing activities rather than the process. The uncontested evidence showed that the applicants' businesses are almost entirely dedicated to automotive components and form an integral part of the motor industry value...

Court Disposition

The award of the commissioner was reviewed and set aside. The applicants are demarcated into the Motor Industry Bargaining Council (MIBCO). The cross-review and conditional cross-review were dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • That part of the award issued by the second respondent on 31 July 2017 under case number ECPE 2470-15 in which certain applicants were found to fall within the scope of registration of the sixth respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • Paragraphs 59 and 61 of the award are substituted with a ruling that the applicants fall within the scope of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council, and are so demarcated.