Jack and Others v Cape Peninsula University of Technology and Others (C850/2017) [2021] ZALCCT 88 (19 November 2021)

Jack and Others v Cape Peninsula University of Technology and Others (C850/2017) [2021] ZALCCT 88 (19 November 2021)

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered and evaluated the evidence regarding the eligibility of the applicants for transfer under the insourcing agreement. The arbitrator distinguished between the applicants and other employees based on consistent criteria, namely whether they had worked at the CPUT site during the nine months prior to the termination of the security services contract. The applicants failed to provide evidence that they met this criterion. The court held that there was a rational basis for the arbitrator's decision and that the applicants had not demonstrated any misdirection or irregularity that would justify setting aside the award. The review...

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 88
Parties
Applicant: Cecilia Jack & 7 Others; Respondent: Cape Peninsula University of Technology; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration, Cape Town; Respondent: K Kleinot (N.O.)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
C850/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Insourcing, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Insourcing Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecilia Jack & 7 Others

Applicant

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration, Cape Town

Respondent

K Kleinot (N.O.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding eligibility for transfer under section 197.
  2. 2 Whether the University acted inconsistently or unfairly in applying the insourcing agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were eligible for continued employment under the insourcing arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered and evaluated the evidence regarding the eligibility of the applicants for transfer under the insourcing agreement. The arbitrator distinguished between the applicants and other employees based on consistent criteria, namely whether they had worked at the CPUT site during the nine months prior to the termination of the security services contract. The applicants failed to provide evidence that they met this criterion. The court held that there was a rational basis for the arbitrator's decision and that the applicants had not demonstrated any misdirection or irregularity that would justify setting aside the award. The review...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.