Moloko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1534/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 76 (9 March 2022)

Moloko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1534/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 76 (9 March 2022)

The court held that the CCMA retained jurisdiction over the dispute as it concerned an alleged unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(c) of the LRA. The commissioner correctly focused on whether an agreement existed entitling Moloko to reinstatement or re-employment. Moloko failed to prove the existence of such an agreement, as the collective agreement relied upon did not apply to him. The ruling, although framed as a jurisdictional decision, was in substance a merits-based determination that no unfair labour practice had been established. The outcome reached was reasonable and justifiable on the material before the commissioner. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 76
Parties
Applicant: Simeon Mighty Moloko; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Themba Raymond Zwane N.O.; Respondent: Anglogold Ashanti Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2022
Case Number
JR 1534/20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Onus of Proof, Section 186 2 C Lra
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Jurisdiction of Ccma Collective Agreement Interpretation Onus of Proof Section 186 2 C Lra

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

Parties

Simeon Mighty Moloko

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Themba Raymond Zwane N.O.

Respondent

Anglogold Ashanti Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute under section 186(2)(c) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established the existence of an agreement entitling reinstatement or re-employment.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner erred in treating the dispute as a jurisdictional issue rather than a merits-based determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the CCMA retained jurisdiction over the dispute as it concerned an alleged unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(c) of the LRA. The commissioner correctly focused on whether an agreement existed entitling Moloko to reinstatement or re-employment. Moloko failed to prove the existence of such an agreement, as the collective agreement relied upon did not apply to him. The ruling, although framed as a jurisdictional decision, was in substance a merits-based determination that no unfair labour practice had been established. The outcome reached was reasonable and justifiable on the material before the commissioner. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

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