Bean v Thee and Others (JR1842/16) [2018] ZALCD 5 (22 June 2018)

Bean v Thee and Others (JR1842/16) [2018] ZALCD 5 (22 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that she was an employee of the third respondent. The evidence showed that after the expiry of her fixed-term employment contracts, the applicant entered into a consultancy agreement, registered as a supplier, and invoiced for services rendered at an hourly rate. She was not subject to the third respondent's control regarding hours or place of work, did not receive employment benefits, and was paid gross amounts without tax deductions. The applicant herself acknowledged her status as a service provider. The court held that the dominant impression of the relationship was that of an independent contractor, not an employee. Consequently,...

Citation
[2018] ZALCD 5
Parties
Applicant: Annabel Bean; Respondent: Commissioner Joseph Wilson Thee; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Edcon Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Case Number
JR1842/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Section 200a Presumption, Fixed Term Contracts, Unfair Dismissal, Costs in Labour Matters
Labour Law Employee Vs Independent Contractor Jurisdiction of Ccma Section 200a Presumption Fixed Term Contracts Unfair Dismissal Costs in Labour Matters

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annabel Bean

Applicant

Commissioner Joseph Wilson Thee

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Edcon Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to hear the dispute based on the applicant's employment status.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable on the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that she was an employee of the third respondent. The evidence showed that after the expiry of her fixed-term employment contracts, the applicant entered into a consultancy agreement, registered as a supplier, and invoiced for services rendered at an hourly rate. She was not subject to the third respondent's control regarding hours or place of work, did not receive employment benefits, and was paid gross amounts without tax deductions. The applicant herself acknowledged her status as a service provider. The court held that the dominant impression of the relationship was that of an independent contractor, not an employee. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is dismissed with costs.