Ernstzen v Reliance Group Trading (Pty) Ltd (C 717/13) [2015] ZALCCT 42 (18 May 2015)

Ernstzen v Reliance Group Trading (Pty) Ltd (C 717/13) [2015] ZALCCT 42 (18 May 2015)

The Labour Court initially had jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claim as pleaded, namely that his dismissal was automatically unfair due to disability discrimination. However, upon consideration of the common cause facts and the expert evidence, the applicant failed to establish that he suffered from a long-term physical impairment substantially limiting his employment prospects. The evidence showed that the applicant was able to secure similar employment after his dismissal, indicating that his injury did not amount to a disability as defined in employment law. Applying the test from Wardlaw, it became apparent that the true reason for dismissal was incapacity, not disability....

Citation
[2015] ZALCCT 42
Parties
Applicant: Reagan John Ernstzen; Respondent: Reliance Group Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Case Number
C 717/13
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine; Referral to Arbitration
Outcome
Proceedings stayed and dispute referred to arbitration under the auspices of the CCMA. No order as to costs.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Referral to Arbitration
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Disability Discrimination Jurisdiction of Labour Court Referral to Arbitration

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reagan John Ernstzen

Applicant

Reliance Group Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine; Referral to Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair due to disability discrimination under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute or if it should be referred to arbitration under section 158(2)(a) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case of disability as defined in employment law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court initially had jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claim as pleaded, namely that his dismissal was automatically unfair due to disability discrimination. However, upon consideration of the common cause facts and the expert evidence, the applicant failed to establish that he suffered from a long-term physical impairment substantially limiting his employment prospects. The evidence showed that the applicant was able to secure similar employment after his dismissal, indicating that his injury did not amount to a disability as defined in employment law. Applying the test from Wardlaw, it became apparent that the true reason for dismissal was incapacity, not disability....

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed and dispute referred to arbitration under the auspices of the CCMA. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The proceedings are stayed in terms of section 158(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act and the dispute is referred to arbitration under the auspices of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
  • There is no order as to costs.