Masegare and Others v Robor Galvanizers (JS293/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 441 (25 July 2014)

Masegare and Others v Robor Galvanizers (JS293/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 441 (25 July 2014)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' claim because the statement of case was filed 496 days late and no condonation application was made. The arbitrator does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court or abridge statutory timeframes. The applicants were dismissed for misconduct, not for participating in an unprotected strike, which places jurisdiction with the bargaining council rather than the Labour Court. Furthermore, the arbitration award finding the dismissal to be fair has not been reviewed or rescinded and is therefore final and binding, terminating the employment relationship and depriving the Court of jurisdiction. All three points...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 441
Parties
Applicant: Hlabisi Masegare and Others; Respondent: Robor Galvanizers
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Case Number
JS293/2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Interlocutory Points in Limine
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction, Condonation, Misconduct, Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction Condonation Misconduct 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlabisi Masegare and Others

Applicant

Robor Galvanizers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Application / Interlocutory Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim given the late referral and absence of condonation application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were dismissed for participating in an unprotected strike or for misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award is final and binding, depriving the Labour Court of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' claim because the statement of case was filed 496 days late and no condonation application was made. The arbitrator does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court or abridge statutory timeframes. The applicants were dismissed for misconduct, not for participating in an unprotected strike, which places jurisdiction with the bargaining council rather than the Labour Court. Furthermore, the arbitration award finding the dismissal to be fair has not been reviewed or rescinded and is therefore final and binding, terminating the employment relationship and depriving the Court of jurisdiction. All three points...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • All three preliminary points raised by the respondent are upheld.
  • The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s claim.