Mokoena and Others v MEC Gauteng Department of Health (J352/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 98; (2016) 37 ILJ 1445 (LC) (18 March 2016)

Mokoena and Others v MEC Gauteng Department of Health (J352/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 98; (2016) 37 ILJ 1445 (LC) (18 March 2016)

The court found that the applicants are employees of the respondent as contemplated by the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The contractual arrangements, regardless of their wording, reflect an employment relationship due to the respondent's supervision, integration of the applicants into its operations, and their economic dependence. The payment of a stipend constitutes remuneration under the LRA. The requirement for the applicants to reapply for their positions was not unlawful, as the respondent was entitled to vet qualifications and criminal records. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to declare the applicants' employment status but cannot rule on unfair dismissal or unfair labour practice...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 98
Parties
Applicant: Mokoena William Butie; Applicant: Khukhe Boipelo Joy; Applicant: Mbotshelwa Zoleka; Applicant: Mahlangu Annah; Applicant: Tshemese Nosicelo; Respondent: MEC Gauteng Department of Health: Mahlangu Qedani Dorothy N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Case Number
J352/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application partially succeeds. Applicants are declared employees of the respondent. No order as to costs.
Judges
P Benjamin
Legal Topics
Employee Status, Fixed Term Contracts, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Remuneration Definition, Unfair Dismissal, Public Sector Employment
Labour Law Employee Status Fixed Term Contracts Jurisdiction of Labour Court Remuneration Definition Unfair Dismissal Public Sector Employment

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokoena William Butie

Applicant

Khukhe Boipelo Joy

Applicant

Mbotshelwa Zoleka

Applicant

Mahlangu Annah

Applicant

Tshemese Nosicelo

Applicant

MEC Gauteng Department of Health: Mahlangu Qedani Dorothy N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are employees of the respondent as contemplated by the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for the applicants to reapply for their positions was unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are employees of the respondent as contemplated by the Labour Relations Act, 1995. The contractual arrangements, regardless of their wording, reflect an employment relationship due to the respondent's supervision, integration of the applicants into its operations, and their economic dependence. The payment of a stipend constitutes remuneration under the LRA. The requirement for the applicants to reapply for their positions was not unlawful, as the respondent was entitled to vet qualifications and criminal records. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to declare the applicants' employment status but cannot rule on unfair dismissal or unfair labour practice...

Court Disposition

Application partially succeeds. Applicants are declared employees of the respondent. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants are declared to be employees of the respondent, as contemplated by the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
  • There is no order as to costs.