James and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (CA8/16) [2017] ZALAC 39; (2017) 38 ILJ 2269 (LAC); [2017] 10 BLLR 979 (LAC) (13 June 2017)

James and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others (CA8/16) [2017] ZALAC 39; (2017) 38 ILJ 2269 (LAC); [2017] 10 BLLR 979 (LAC) (13 June 2017)

The court held that the CCMA's jurisdiction is established by the case pleaded by the employees at the time of referral. The appellants referred a dispute of unfair dismissal to the CCMA, accepting that they had been dismissed and seeking reinstatement. The facts placed before the commissioner objectively clothed the CCMA with jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. The court found that the LRA's definition of dismissal is broad enough to include terminations that may be wrongful or in breach of a collective agreement. The appellants cannot now abandon the process and raise a new cause of action outside the LRA. The court deemed it unnecessary to decide on the validity or lawfulness of the...

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 39
Parties
Appellant: William James; Appellant: Thomas Barry; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Daniel du Plessis
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Case Number
CA8/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Labour Court's judgment upheld. No order as to costs.
Judges
Tlaletsi, Davis, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Ccma Jurisdiction, Collective Agreement Breach, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Termination of Employment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Ccma Jurisdiction Collective Agreement Breach Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Termination of Employment

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James

Appellant

Thomas Barry

Appellant

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Daniel du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute referred by the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the appellants was valid or unlawful due to breach of a collective agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are entitled to relief outside the Labour Relations Act remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the CCMA's jurisdiction is established by the case pleaded by the employees at the time of referral. The appellants referred a dispute of unfair dismissal to the CCMA, accepting that they had been dismissed and seeking reinstatement. The facts placed before the commissioner objectively clothed the CCMA with jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. The court found that the LRA's definition of dismissal is broad enough to include terminations that may be wrongful or in breach of a collective agreement. The appellants cannot now abandon the process and raise a new cause of action outside the LRA. The court deemed it unnecessary to decide on the validity or lawfulness of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Labour Court's judgment upheld. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.