Mkhize v Rand Water Soc Ltd and Others (JR1515/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 284 (2 August 2024)

Mkhize v Rand Water Soc Ltd and Others (JR1515/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 284 (2 August 2024)

The court held that the CCMA does not have jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair labour practice dispute under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA where the facts giving rise to the dispute arose after the termination of the employment relationship. The applicant's entitlement to a bonus, if any, was not perfected during his employment but only became a dispute when the respondent paid bonuses to staff in January 2022 and refused to pay the applicant, who was no longer an employee. The authorities cited by the applicant do not support jurisdiction in these circumstances, as they concern disputes arising during employment or specific statutory provisions for former employees. The STI policy's...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 284
Parties
Applicant: Mduduzi Mkhize; Respondent: Rand Water Soc Ltd; Respondent: Eugene Mtileni N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2024
Case Number
JR1515/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
L de Haan
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Ccma Jurisdiction, Termination of Employment, Employee Benefits, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Ccma Jurisdiction Termination of Employment Employee Benefits Review of 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mduduzi Mkhize

Applicant

Rand Water Soc Ltd

Respondent

Eugene Mtileni N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair labour practice dispute where the alleged unfairness arose after termination of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as a former employee, can claim a pro rata incentive bonus under the STI policy.
  3. 3 Whether the facts giving rise to the dispute occurred during or after the employment relationship.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the CCMA does not have jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair labour practice dispute under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA where the facts giving rise to the dispute arose after the termination of the employment relationship. The applicant's entitlement to a bonus, if any, was not perfected during his employment but only became a dispute when the respondent paid bonuses to staff in January 2022 and refused to pay the applicant, who was no longer an employee. The authorities cited by the applicant do not support jurisdiction in these circumstances, as they concern disputes arising during employment or specific statutory provisions for former employees. The STI policy's...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.