Johnson v CCMA and Others (C450/2004) [2005] ZALC 77; (2005) 26 ILJ 1332 (LC); [2005] 8 BLLR 796 (LC) (24 May 2005)

Johnson v CCMA and Others (C450/2004) [2005] ZALC 77; (2005) 26 ILJ 1332 (LC); [2005] 8 BLLR 796 (LC) (24 May 2005)

The commissioner erred in law by declining jurisdiction to conciliate the applicant's unfair labour practice dispute. The respondents failed to produce a valid written arbitration agreement as required by the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, and the private arbitration award could not be relied upon to oust the CCMA's jurisdiction or to sustain a plea of res judicata. In the absence of a written agreement and a valid arbitration award, the CCMA retained jurisdiction in terms of sections 133(1)(b) and 191(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act to attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation. The commissioner's ruling was therefore reviewable and must be set aside.

Citation
[2005] ZALC 77
Parties
Applicant: Lionel Blanch Johnson; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner S. Flowers; Respondent: Creda Communications
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2005
Case Number
C450/2004
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; commissioner's ruling set aside; dispute referred back to CCMA for conciliation.
Judges
Murphy AJ
Legal Topics
Ccma Jurisdiction, Private Arbitration, Unfair Labour Practice, Collective Agreement, Res Judicata, Conciliation
Labour Law Ccma Jurisdiction Private Arbitration Unfair Labour Practice Collective Agreement Res Judicata Conciliation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lionel Blanch Johnson

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner S. Flowers

Respondent

Creda Communications

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA's jurisdiction to conciliate an unfair labour practice dispute was ousted by a prior private arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a written arbitration agreement precluded the application of res judicata to the dispute before the CCMA.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner erred in law by declining jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner erred in law by declining jurisdiction to conciliate the applicant's unfair labour practice dispute. The respondents failed to produce a valid written arbitration agreement as required by the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, and the private arbitration award could not be relied upon to oust the CCMA's jurisdiction or to sustain a plea of res judicata. In the absence of a written agreement and a valid arbitration award, the CCMA retained jurisdiction in terms of sections 133(1)(b) and 191(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act to attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation. The commissioner's ruling was therefore reviewable and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; commissioner's ruling set aside; dispute referred back to CCMA for conciliation.

Orders

  • The ruling of the second respondent dated 8 July 2004 under case number WE 6602-04 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is declared that the first respondent has jurisdiction in terms of section 191(1)(a) read with section 133(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 to attempt to resolve through conciliation the dispute referred to it by the applicant on 4 June 2004.