Mthimkhulu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (D318/98) [1998] ZALC 92 (29 October 1998)

Mthimkhulu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (D318/98) [1998] ZALC 92 (29 October 1998)

The Labour Court held that the commissioner of the CCMA was correct in determining her own jurisdiction and that she did not act ultra vires. The existence of a collective agreement, which prescribed private arbitration for misconduct disputes, excluded the jurisdiction of the CCMA. The applicant was bound by the collective agreement, regardless of his union membership status at the time of its conclusion. The CCMA could not accept jurisdiction in contravention of the Act, and the commissioner acted within her competence. The application for review was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 92
Parties
Applicant: T Mthimkhulu; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Ms A C E Reynolds N.O); Respondent: Ikhwezi Transport
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 1998
Case Number
D318/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Collective Agreement, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Private Arbitration, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreement Jurisdiction of Ccma Private Arbitration Unfair Dismissal

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T Mthimkhulu

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Ms A C E Reynolds N.O)

Respondent

Ikhwezi Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a collective agreement excluded CCMA jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner acted ultra vires in determining jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the commissioner of the CCMA was correct in determining her own jurisdiction and that she did not act ultra vires. The existence of a collective agreement, which prescribed private arbitration for misconduct disputes, excluded the jurisdiction of the CCMA. The applicant was bound by the collective agreement, regardless of his union membership status at the time of its conclusion. The CCMA could not accept jurisdiction in contravention of the Act, and the commissioner acted within her competence. The application for review was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.