NUMSA v Tshigi (J3564/00) [2002] ZALC 141 (31 May 2002)

NUMSA v Tshigi (J3564/00) [2002] ZALC 141 (31 May 2002)

The court found that the commissioner considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in determining that the second applicant was not an employee of ESCOM as defined by the Labour Relations Act. The applicant was paid based on invoices, did not receive employee benefits, and was differentiated from permanent employees. The contractual terms indicated no expectation of permanent employment. The applicants failed to demonstrate any misconduct or irregularity in the arbitration award, nor did they show that the commissioner failed to apply the correct legal test. The review application was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 141
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA; Respondent: Tshigi; Respondent: ESCOM
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2002
Case Number
J3564/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Employee Vs Independent Contractor Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA

Applicant

Tshigi

Respondent

ESCOM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second applicant was an employee of ESCOM as defined by the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed misconduct or irregularity in the arbitration award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in determining that the second applicant was not an employee of ESCOM as defined by the Labour Relations Act. The applicant was paid based on invoices, did not receive employee benefits, and was differentiated from permanent employees. The contractual terms indicated no expectation of permanent employment. The applicants failed to demonstrate any misconduct or irregularity in the arbitration award, nor did they show that the commissioner failed to apply the correct legal test. The review application was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the third respondent.