Maarten and Others v Rubin NO and Others (C356/2000) [2000] ZALC 98; [2001] 2 BLLR 162 (LC) (15 September 2000)

Maarten and Others v Rubin NO and Others (C356/2000) [2000] ZALC 98; [2001] 2 BLLR 162 (LC) (15 September 2000)

The Labour Court found that the applicants, through their amended referral and statements by counsel, unequivocally elected to proceed only on the basis of constructive dismissal, abandoning other causes of action reserved for the Labour Court. The first respondent misconstrued his function and failed to apply the correct legal principles, resulting in a denial of the applicants' right to a fair trial. The Court held that the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as formulated and that the applicants were entitled to amend their referral. Given that the result was a foregone conclusion and the Court was in as good a position as the CCMA to decide the jurisdictional issue, it was...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 98
Parties
Applicant: Maarten, Nicolaas Francois; Applicant: Kotze, Willem Hendrik; Applicant: Lotter, Helen Louisa Hendrina; Applicant: Wood, Patricia Yvonne; Applicant: Scharneck, Maureen Lorraine; Applicant: Hansen, Freddie Adam; Respondent: Rubin, Neville N.O.; Respondent: South African National Parks; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2000
Case Number
C356/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of CCMA Jurisdictional Award
Outcome
Application for review succeeds; CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate the constructive dismissal dispute.
Judges
Stelzner
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Ccma Jurisdiction, Review of Arbitration Award, Section 191 Lra, Amendment of Referral, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constructive Dismissal Ccma Jurisdiction Review of Arbitration Award Section 191 Lra Amendment of Referral Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maarten, Nicolaas Francois

Applicant

Kotze, Willem Hendrik

Applicant

Lotter, Helen Louisa Hendrina

Applicant

Wood, Patricia Yvonne

Applicant

Scharneck, Maureen Lorraine

Applicant

Hansen, Freddie Adam

Applicant

Rubin, Neville N.O.

Respondent

South African National Parks

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of CCMA Jurisdictional Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute based on constructive dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants unequivocally abandoned other causes of action reserved for the Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent committed a gross irregularity by misconstruing his function and failing to apply the correct legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the applicants, through their amended referral and statements by counsel, unequivocally elected to proceed only on the basis of constructive dismissal, abandoning other causes of action reserved for the Labour Court. The first respondent misconstrued his function and failed to apply the correct legal principles, resulting in a denial of the applicants' right to a fair trial. The Court held that the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as formulated and that the applicants were entitled to amend their referral. Given that the result was a foregone conclusion and the Court was in as good a position as the CCMA to decide the jurisdictional issue, it was...

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeds; CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate the constructive dismissal dispute.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent under case number WE26866 dated 20 March 2000 and handed down on 11 April 2000 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The decision is substituted with a ruling that the CCMA has jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the applicants and the second respondent based on allegations of unfair constructive dismissal.