BWAWUSA obo Swartz v Phillips NO and Others (C691/18) [2021] ZALCCT 22 (23 February 2021)

BWAWUSA obo Swartz v Phillips NO and Others (C691/18) [2021] ZALCCT 22 (23 February 2021)

The court found that the applicant had already received payment for the periods in question through two settlement agreements, one of which was entered into after the referral of the third dispute but before the jurisdictional hearing. The applicant's representative did not dispute that the employer had issued a UIF certificate with 'end of contract' recorded, following the settlement. The court held that the referral before the Commissioner was not a separate dispute in law or fact, but rather an attempt to pursue claims already settled. Accordingly, the Commissioner was correct in ruling that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 22
Parties
Applicant: BWAWUSA obo R. Swartz; Respondent: Jill Phillips N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: L.J. Painting Contractors (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2021
Case Number
C691/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application to Set Aside a Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application to review the jurisdictional ruling is dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Suspension, Settlement Agreement, Review of Arbitration Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Suspension Settlement Agreement Review of Arbitration Ruling

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BWAWUSA obo R. Swartz

Applicant

Jill Phillips N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

L.J. Painting Contractors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application to Set Aside a Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's dispute regarding unfair suspension.
  2. 2 Whether the referral before the Commissioner constituted a separate dispute in law or fact.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreements precluded further claims by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had already received payment for the periods in question through two settlement agreements, one of which was entered into after the referral of the third dispute but before the jurisdictional hearing. The applicant's representative did not dispute that the employer had issued a UIF certificate with 'end of contract' recorded, following the settlement. The court held that the referral before the Commissioner was not a separate dispute in law or fact, but rather an attempt to pursue claims already settled. Accordingly, the Commissioner was correct in ruling that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to review the jurisdictional ruling is dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application to review the jurisdictional ruling under Case Number WECT 1617/18 is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay the costs.