Eskom v Marshall and Others (JR1619/01) [2002] ZALC 78; (2002) 23 ILJ 2251 (LC); [2003] 1 BLLR 12 (LC) (13 September 2002)

Eskom v Marshall and Others (JR1619/01) [2002] ZALC 78; (2002) 23 ILJ 2251 (LC); [2003] 1 BLLR 12 (LC) (13 September 2002)

The Labour Court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute regarding the separation package because Dr Marshall did not have a contractual or statutory entitlement to such a benefit. The separation package policy was a guideline and did not create a right or privilege enforceable by arbitration. The court found that, according to binding precedent, a benefit under item 2(1)(b) must be one to which an employee is entitled ex contractu, ex lege, or through a collective agreement. Since Dr Marshall’s claim did not meet these criteria, the commissioner’s award was a nullity. The court also considered the concept of legitimate expectation but concluded that, in this case,...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 78
Parties
Applicant: Eskom; Respondent: Dr R Marshall & Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Case Number
JR1619/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The commissioner’s award is declared a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. No order as to costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Ccma Jurisdiction, Separation Package, Legitimate Expectation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Ccma Jurisdiction Separation Package Legitimate Expectation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom

Applicant

Dr R Marshall & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute regarding the separation package.
  2. 2 Whether Dr Marshall had a contractual or statutory entitlement to the separation package.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner’s award was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute regarding the separation package because Dr Marshall did not have a contractual or statutory entitlement to such a benefit. The separation package policy was a guideline and did not create a right or privilege enforceable by arbitration. The court found that, according to binding precedent, a benefit under item 2(1)(b) must be one to which an employee is entitled ex contractu, ex lege, or through a collective agreement. Since Dr Marshall’s claim did not meet these criteria, the commissioner’s award was a nullity. The court also considered the concept of legitimate expectation but concluded that, in this case,...

Court Disposition

The commissioner’s award is declared a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The award made by Commissioner Dorman dated 5 July 2001 is declared a nullity.
  • There is to be no order as to costs.