Big Sky Coaches v Mothupi NO and Others (JR1370/04) [2009] ZALC 177 (25 February 2009)

Big Sky Coaches v Mothupi NO and Others (JR1370/04) [2009] ZALC 177 (25 February 2009)

The court found that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by misconstruing the nature of the investigation required and by preventing the Applicant's representative from cross-examining the Third Respondent on the true nature of the employment relationship. The Commissioner failed to appreciate that his powers under section 138 of the Labour Relations Act must be exercised to ensure fairness. The evidence did not support the Third Respondent's claim of dismissal, and inconsistencies in his version undermined his credibility. The court held that the employee failed to discharge the duty of proving dismissal on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, the CCMA lacked...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 177
Parties
Applicant: Big Sky Coaches; Respondent: Mothupi, T N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Marumo Steven
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Case Number
JR1370/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted.
Judges
molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Employment Relationship, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Employment Relationship Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Big Sky Coaches

Applicant

Mothupi, T N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Marumo Steven

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Respondent was dismissed by the Applicant within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity in the arbitration process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by misconstruing the nature of the investigation required and by preventing the Applicant's representative from cross-examining the Third Respondent on the true nature of the employment relationship. The Commissioner failed to appreciate that his powers under section 138 of the Labour Relations Act must be exercised to ensure fairness. The evidence did not support the Third Respondent's claim of dismissal, and inconsistencies in his version undermined his credibility. The court held that the employee failed to discharge the duty of proving dismissal on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, the CCMA lacked...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The Applicant, Mr Marumo Steven, was not dismissed.
  • The CCMA does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant’s disputes, and accordingly the claim is dismissed.