Meyer v W C Butler t/a Wack-Em (DA6/2000) [2001] ZALAC 16; [2001] 8 BLLR 853 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1346 (LAC) (15 February 2001)

Meyer v W C Butler t/a Wack-Em (DA6/2000) [2001] ZALAC 16; [2001] 8 BLLR 853 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1346 (LAC) (15 February 2001)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the word 'agreement' in section 141(1) of the Labour Relations Act must be interpreted in accordance with the common law, which recognises express, tacit, and implied agreements. There is no indication in the LRA or section 141(1) that the legislature intended to restrict the meaning of 'agreement' to only express agreements. The correspondence between the parties' legal representatives established a tacit or implied agreement to refer the dispute to the CCMA for arbitration. Consequently, the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter, and the Labour Court's order making the award an order of court was not erroneously granted. The rescission of the...

Citation
[2001] ZALAC 16
Parties
Appellant: M G Meyer; Respondent: W C Butler t/a Wack-Em
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2001
Case Number
DA 6/2000
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal Against Rescission of Labour Court Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court's rescission order set aside.
Judges
M.T.R. Mogoeng, R.M.M. Zondo, M.M. Joffe
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Agreement to Arbitrate, Rescission of Order, Interpretation of Statute
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Agreement to Arbitrate Rescission of Order Interpretation of Statute

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M G Meyer

Appellant

W C Butler t/a Wack-Em

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal Against Rescission of Labour Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate a dismissal dispute based on operational reasons without an express agreement by the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court's order making the CCMA award an order of court was erroneously granted.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court was correct to rescind its own order mero motu under section 165 of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the word 'agreement' in section 141(1) of the Labour Relations Act must be interpreted in accordance with the common law, which recognises express, tacit, and implied agreements. There is no indication in the LRA or section 141(1) that the legislature intended to restrict the meaning of 'agreement' to only express agreements. The correspondence between the parties' legal representatives established a tacit or implied agreement to refer the dispute to the CCMA for arbitration. Consequently, the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter, and the Labour Court's order making the award an order of court was not erroneously granted. The rescission of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court's rescission order set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of Waglay J dated 02 December 1999 is set aside.