Eskom v NUMSA and Others (JR1755/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 81 (8 March 2017)

Eskom v NUMSA and Others (JR1755/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 81 (8 March 2017)

The court found that the third respondent erred in concluding that the issue of JH Smith's study loan was not dealt with in the prior arbitration. The objective facts, including the contents of Commissioner Brand's award, demonstrated that the union's demand for the study loan formed part of the overall wage increase demand, which was rejected as unfair and unreasonable. The award specifically mentioned the JH Smith demand and rejected it by accepting Eskom's offer as fair and reasonable. The fact that the union did not abandon the demand, due to lack of proof from the applicant, meant it remained a live issue and was disposed of in the arbitration. Therefore, the matter was res judicata...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 81
Parties
Applicant: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: D I K Wilson N.O; Respondent: NUM; Respondent: Solidarity
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2017
Case Number
JR1755/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
The review application is granted. The CCMA's jurisdictional ruling is reviewed and set aside. It is replaced with an order that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the demand for JH Smith's study loan increase.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Ccma Jurisdiction, Arbitration Award, Functus Officio
Labour Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Ccma Jurisdiction Arbitration Award Functus Officio

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Applicant

NUMSA

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

D I K Wilson N.O

Respondent

NUM

Respondent

Solidarity

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the demand for JH Smith's study loan increase.
  2. 2 Whether the issue of JH Smith's study loan was res judicata following the prior arbitration award.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent correctly interpreted the scope of the prior arbitration award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third respondent erred in concluding that the issue of JH Smith's study loan was not dealt with in the prior arbitration. The objective facts, including the contents of Commissioner Brand's award, demonstrated that the union's demand for the study loan formed part of the overall wage increase demand, which was rejected as unfair and unreasonable. The award specifically mentioned the JH Smith demand and rejected it by accepting Eskom's offer as fair and reasonable. The fact that the union did not abandon the demand, due to lack of proof from the applicant, meant it remained a live issue and was disposed of in the arbitration. Therefore, the matter was res judicata...

Court Disposition

The review application is granted. The CCMA's jurisdictional ruling is reviewed and set aside. It is replaced with an order that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the demand for JH Smith's study loan increase.

Orders

  • The ruling issued by the third respondent under case number HO 2602/13 dated 9 August 2014 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is replaced with an order that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the demand of JH Smith's increase of study loan to R10 000.00.