Mashego v National Union of Metalworkers South Africa (JA 2013/13) [2014] ZALAC 94 (13 May 2014)

Mashego v National Union of Metalworkers South Africa (JA 2013/13) [2014] ZALAC 94 (13 May 2014)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court was correct in finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellant's claim. The facts pleaded did not establish an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(d)(i) of the LRA, as the dismissal was for misconduct and not for exercising rights under the LRA. The concept of two dismissals was rejected as logically and legally unsustainable. The certificate of outcome from the conciliator does not bind the court on jurisdiction. The Labour Court was not obliged to refer the matter to the CCMA, as no cogent reason was advanced for such an order. The costs order made by the registrar was set aside, as the trial judge had expressly...

Citation
[2014] ZALAC 94
Parties
Appellant: Booysen Mfananyana Mashego; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Case Number
JA 2013/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Costs
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed except in respect of the costs order. The appeal against the costs order is upheld; the costs order is set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.
Judges
Waglay, Molemela, Sutherland
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Section 191 Lra, Section 187 Lra, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Labour Court Section 191 Lra Section 187 Lra Costs Order

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Booysen Mfananyana Mashego

Appellant

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear the appellant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the facts pleaded by the appellant constituted an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(d)(i) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court was bound by the certificate of outcome from the conciliator.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court was correct in finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellant's claim. The facts pleaded did not establish an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(d)(i) of the LRA, as the dismissal was for misconduct and not for exercising rights under the LRA. The concept of two dismissals was rejected as logically and legally unsustainable. The certificate of outcome from the conciliator does not bind the court on jurisdiction. The Labour Court was not obliged to refer the matter to the CCMA, as no cogent reason was advanced for such an order. The costs order made by the registrar was set aside, as the trial judge had expressly...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed except in respect of the costs order. The appeal against the costs order is upheld; the costs order is set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed, save in respect of the costs order.
  • The appeal against the costs order is upheld.