Mathope and Others v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 753-21) [2024] ZALCJHB 61 (16 February 2024)

Mathope and Others v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 753-21) [2024] ZALCJHB 61 (16 February 2024)

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Applicants’ claims for severance pay, notice pay, and payment under section 198B(10)(a) of the LRA. The Applicants had withdrawn their unfair dismissal claim, and the remaining monetary claims were not properly referred to conciliation and arbitration as required by statute. The Applicants were employed on fixed term contracts linked to the DOJ contract, and the termination of those contracts did not constitute a dismissal for operational requirements. The applicable collective agreement excluded the operation of section 198B(10)(a). Disputes regarding severance pay and notice pay for employees below the minimum...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 61
Parties
Applicant: Mothapo, Johannes and 19 Others; Respondent: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Case Number
JS 753-21
Procedural Posture
Statutory Claim / Trial on Papers; Oral Evidence Dispensed
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Norton
Legal Topics
Severance Pay, Fixed Term Contracts, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Notice Pay, Collective Agreements
Labour Law Severance Pay Fixed Term Contracts Jurisdiction of Labour Court Notice Pay Collective Agreements

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mothapo, Johannes and 19 Others

Applicant

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Claim / Trial on Papers; Oral Evidence Dispensed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants were entitled to severance pay under section 41 of the BCEA.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants were entitled to notice pay.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants were entitled to payment under section 198B(10)(a) of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Applicants’ claims for severance pay, notice pay, and payment under section 198B(10)(a) of the LRA. The Applicants had withdrawn their unfair dismissal claim, and the remaining monetary claims were not properly referred to conciliation and arbitration as required by statute. The Applicants were employed on fixed term contracts linked to the DOJ contract, and the termination of those contracts did not constitute a dismissal for operational requirements. The applicable collective agreement excluded the operation of section 198B(10)(a). Disputes regarding severance pay and notice pay for employees below the minimum...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The Applicants’ action is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.