Construction and Allied Workers Union v Grinaker Civil engineering (J1453/00) [2002] ZALC 81; (2002) 23 ILJ 2248 (LC); [2003] 1 BLLR 5 (LC) (19 September 2002)

Construction and Allied Workers Union v Grinaker Civil engineering (J1453/00) [2002] ZALC 81; (2002) 23 ILJ 2248 (LC); [2003] 1 BLLR 5 (LC) (19 September 2002)

The court found that the joint venture, not the respondent, was the employer of the second applicant. The evidence showed that the joint venture was formed for a specific purpose, employed its own staff, and administered employment contracts and terminations. The respondent's role was limited to administering remuneration and benefits for the joint venture's salaried staff. The employment contract and correspondence, while on the respondent's letterhead, referred to the joint venture as the employer. The second applicant was aware of the joint venture's role, as evidenced by his referral of disputes to the CCMA naming the joint venture as employer. The joint venture met the legal...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 81
Parties
Applicant: Construction & Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Grinaker Civil Engineering
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2002
Case Number
J1453/00
Procedural Posture
Labour Law Application / Ruling on Point in Limine Regarding Employer Identity
Outcome
The court ruled that the respondent was not the employer of the second applicant and ordered the second applicant to pay 75% of the respondent's costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Joint Venture Liability, Dismissal, Costs Award
Labour Law Employment Relationship Joint Venture Liability Dismissal Costs Award

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

Construction & Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Grinaker Civil Engineering

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Law Application / Ruling on Point in Limine Regarding Employer Identity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was the employer of the second applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the joint venture constituted an employer for purposes of the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be held liable for the claim of the second applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the joint venture, not the respondent, was the employer of the second applicant. The evidence showed that the joint venture was formed for a specific purpose, employed its own staff, and administered employment contracts and terminations. The respondent's role was limited to administering remuneration and benefits for the joint venture's salaried staff. The employment contract and correspondence, while on the respondent's letterhead, referred to the joint venture as the employer. The second applicant was aware of the joint venture's role, as evidenced by his referral of disputes to the CCMA naming the joint venture as employer. The joint venture met the legal...

Court Disposition

The court ruled that the respondent was not the employer of the second applicant and ordered the second applicant to pay 75% of the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent was not the employer of the second applicant.
  • The second applicant is ordered to pay 75% of the respondent's costs.