Ideal Security Services CC v CCMA and Others (JR 1043/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 375 (10 October 2018)

Ideal Security Services CC v CCMA and Others (JR 1043/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 375 (10 October 2018)

The court found that the objective facts did not support the existence of a dismissal. The third respondent's interpretation of the owner's statement was inconsistent with subsequent actions, such as the submission of sick notes and the owner's denial of dismissal. Since the third respondent failed to establish that a dismissal occurred, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The arbitration award was therefore a nullity and had to be set aside.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 375
Parties
Applicant: Ideal Security Services CC; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Mr Armond Wolfaardt
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Case Number
JR 1043/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and replaced with a finding of no jurisdiction.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof, Interpretation of Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof Interpretation of Dismissal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ideal Security Services CC

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Mr Armond Wolfaardt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable on the basis of a jurisdictional error.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objective facts did not support the existence of a dismissal. The third respondent's interpretation of the owner's statement was inconsistent with subsequent actions, such as the submission of sick notes and the owner's denial of dismissal. Since the third respondent failed to establish that a dismissal occurred, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The arbitration award was therefore a nullity and had to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and replaced with a finding of no jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is replaced with an order that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, since the third respondent was not dismissed.