Motsomotso v Mogale City Local Municipality (JS 1355/09) [2014] ZALCJHB 488 (18 December 2014)

Motsomotso v Mogale City Local Municipality (JS 1355/09) [2014] ZALCJHB 488 (18 December 2014)

The Labour Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim of unfair discrimination because the applicant had not referred the dispute to the CCMA for conciliation as required by section 10 of the Employment Equity Act. The certificate of outcome relied upon by the applicant was issued by the Bargaining Council in respect of an unfair labour practice, not unfair discrimination, and thus could not be used to bring the claim before the Labour Court. The statutory requirements for conciliation by the CCMA are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by prior conciliation at a Bargaining Council or by private attempts to resolve the dispute. As the jurisdictional...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 488
Parties
Applicant: Cynthia Theresia Motsomotso; Respondent: Mogale City Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Case Number
JS 1355/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Challenge and Preliminary Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Jurisdiction, Conciliation Prerequisite
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Jurisdiction Conciliation Prerequisite

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cynthia Theresia Motsomotso

Applicant

Mogale City Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Challenge and Preliminary Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim of unfair discrimination without prior conciliation by the CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's reliance on a Bargaining Council certificate of outcome suffices for jurisdiction under the Employment Equity Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application for condonation for late filing is relevant given the jurisdictional challenge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim of unfair discrimination because the applicant had not referred the dispute to the CCMA for conciliation as required by section 10 of the Employment Equity Act. The certificate of outcome relied upon by the applicant was issued by the Bargaining Council in respect of an unfair labour practice, not unfair discrimination, and thus could not be used to bring the claim before the Labour Court. The statutory requirements for conciliation by the CCMA are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by prior conciliation at a Bargaining Council or by private attempts to resolve the dispute. As the jurisdictional...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s alleged unfair discrimination claim.
  • There is no order as to costs.