Galatis v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 798/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 55 (5 March 2014)

Galatis v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 798/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 55 (5 March 2014)

The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner supported the finding that the Third Respondent was an employee. Factors such as economic dependence, control and supervision, and the deduction of PAYE and UIF pointed towards an employment relationship. The Applicant's arguments regarding professional supervision and tax deductions were not sufficient to overturn the finding. The court held that there were no prospects of another court arriving at a different conclusion based on the material before the Commissioner. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 55
Parties
Applicant: Galatis Peter; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Boyce Michael N.O.; Respondent: Van Gelman Coleen
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2014
Case Number
JR 798/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Masipa
Legal Topics
Employee Vs Contractor, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Order, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employee Vs Contractor Review of Arbitration Award Costs Order Prospects of Success

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galatis Peter

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Boyce Michael N.O.

Respondent

Van Gelman Coleen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Respondent was an employee or an independent contractor.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence before the Commissioner supported the finding of employment.
  3. 3 Whether the deduction of PAYE, SITE, and UIF is determinative of employment status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner supported the finding that the Third Respondent was an employee. Factors such as economic dependence, control and supervision, and the deduction of PAYE and UIF pointed towards an employment relationship. The Applicant's arguments regarding professional supervision and tax deductions were not sufficient to overturn the finding. The court held that there were no prospects of another court arriving at a different conclusion based on the material before the Commissioner. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.