Goliath v SA Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (C581/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 10; (2023) 44 ILJ 185 (LC) (20 September 2022)

Goliath v SA Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (C581/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 10; (2023) 44 ILJ 185 (LC) (20 September 2022)

The court found that the applicant was engaged as an independent contractor, not as an employee. The contract was clear and detailed in its terms, repeatedly renewed over fifteen years, and the applicant, with advanced legal qualifications, acquiesced to its terms. The SABC exercised only limited control necessary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCCT 10
Parties
Applicant: GM Goliath; Respondent: SA Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Madelein Loyson N.O
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Case Number
C581/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the CCMA jurisdictional ruling is dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Independent Contractor, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Dominant Impression Test
Labour Law Employment Status Independent Contractor Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Dominant Impression Test

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GM Goliath

Applicant

SA Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Madelein Loyson N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the alleged unfair dismissal dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator correctly applied the dominant impression test to determine employment status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was engaged as an independent contractor, not as an employee. The contract was clear and detailed in its terms, repeatedly renewed over fifteen years, and the applicant, with advanced legal qualifications, acquiesced to its terms. The SABC exercised only limited control necessary for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, not the supervision typical of employment. The applicant was paid per programme, not entitled to employee benefits, and free to pursue other non-competitive work. The degree of integration and economic dependence did not override the substantive contractual arrangement. The arbitrator's finding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the CCMA jurisdictional ruling is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the ruling of the Third Respondent dated 23 August 2019, under CCMA case no WECT 6471-19 is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.