CEPPAWU and Others v Get Fresh Cosmetics SA (Pty) Limited (J 1424/01) [2004] ZALC 21 (24 February 2004)

CEPPAWU and Others v Get Fresh Cosmetics SA (Pty) Limited (J 1424/01) [2004] ZALC 21 (24 February 2004)

The court found that the dispute before it concerns unfair dismissal, which includes both the alleged lack of a fair ultimatum and the issue of selective non re-employment. These are not separate disputes but reasons for the unfairness of the dismissal. The Labour Court's jurisdiction is not excluded merely because selective re-employment was not separately referred to the CCMA. The court further held that the applicant had properly disclosed the names of the litigants to the respondent's attorneys prior to the hearing, and the respondent's persistence in raising this point was unjustified. Both points in limine were dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial on the merits.

Citation
[2004] ZALC 21
Parties
Applicant: CEPPAWU and 40 Others; Respondent: Get Fresh Cosmetics SA (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Case Number
J 1424/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Points in Limine Before Trial on Merits
Outcome
Both points in limine are dismissed with costs. The matter is ordered to be set down for trial on the merits.
Judges
L.P Pakade
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Strike Action, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Selective Re Employment, Conciliation Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Strike Action Jurisdiction of Labour Court Selective Re Employment Conciliation Requirement

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

CEPPAWU and 40 Others

Applicant

Get Fresh Cosmetics SA (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Points in Limine Before Trial on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute regarding selective re-employment when it was not separately referred to the CCMA for conciliation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has properly disclosed the actual parties litigating in the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute before it concerns unfair dismissal, which includes both the alleged lack of a fair ultimatum and the issue of selective non re-employment. These are not separate disputes but reasons for the unfairness of the dismissal. The Labour Court's jurisdiction is not excluded merely because selective re-employment was not separately referred to the CCMA. The court further held that the applicant had properly disclosed the names of the litigants to the respondent's attorneys prior to the hearing, and the respondent's persistence in raising this point was unjustified. Both points in limine were dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial on the merits.

Court Disposition

Both points in limine are dismissed with costs. The matter is ordered to be set down for trial on the merits.

Orders

  • Both points in limine raised by the respondent are dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is to be set down for trial on the merits.