Diamond and Others v Daimler Chrysler SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (LP88/05 , P88/05) [2006] ZALC 24; [2007] 3 BLLR 197 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2595 (LC) (8 September 2006)

Diamond and Others v Daimler Chrysler SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (LP88/05 , P88/05) [2006] ZALC 24; [2007] 3 BLLR 197 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2595 (LC) (8 September 2006)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation or application of a collective agreement unless the statutory procedure under section 24 of the Labour Relations Act is followed. In this case, the applicants referred the dispute to the CCMA, which issued a jurisdictional ruling against them. The applicants did not challenge this ruling by way of review and instead referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The agreement between NUMSA and the first respondent, even if unsigned, constitutes a collective agreement by virtue of the conduct and ratification of the parties. The applicants' attempt to re-characterize the agreement as a non-collective...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 24
Parties
Applicant: Henry Diamond & 57 others; Respondent: Daimler Chrysler SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ikhwezi Trucktech
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2006
Case Number
P88/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Application for Amendment and Condonation; Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Applications for amendment and condonation are dismissed. Costs are awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
CELE AJ
Legal Topics
Collective Agreement Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Section 197 Transfer, Condonation for Late Referral, Contractual Claims, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreement Interpretation Jurisdiction of Labour Court Section 197 Transfer Condonation for Late Referral Contractual Claims Costs Order

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Diamond & 57 others

Applicant

Daimler Chrysler SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ikhwezi Trucktech

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Application for Amendment and Condonation; Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of a collective agreement?
  2. 2 Is the agreement between NUMSA and the first respondent a collective agreement as defined by the Labour Relations Act?
  3. 3 Should condonation be granted for the late referral of the dispute to the Labour Court?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation or application of a collective agreement unless the statutory procedure under section 24 of the Labour Relations Act is followed. In this case, the applicants referred the dispute to the CCMA, which issued a jurisdictional ruling against them. The applicants did not challenge this ruling by way of review and instead referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The agreement between NUMSA and the first respondent, even if unsigned, constitutes a collective agreement by virtue of the conduct and ratification of the parties. The applicants' attempt to re-characterize the agreement as a non-collective...

Court Disposition

Applications for amendment and condonation are dismissed. Costs are awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The applications are dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of both respondents, jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.