Nzingele v Pickitup (Pty) Ltd (JR 1480/02) [2007] ZALC 130 (18 September 2007)

Nzingele v Pickitup (Pty) Ltd (JR 1480/02) [2007] ZALC 130 (18 September 2007)

The court found that the Second Respondent did not commit any gross irregularity by deciding the identity of the employer before the issue of jurisdiction, as the parties had agreed that this was the central issue. The applicants were afforded the opportunity to lead evidence regarding the employment relationship, and the evidence showed that the Fourth Respondent was a labour broker who employed the applicants and paid their salaries. The Third Respondent was merely a client of the Fourth Respondent, and there was no direct contractual relationship between the applicants and the Third Respondent. The arbitrator's finding was rationally connected to the evidence and did not warrant review...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 130
Parties
Applicant: Poppi Nzingele; Respondent: Pickitup (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2007
Case Number
JR 1480/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Identity of Employer, Gross Irregularity, Jurisdiction of Ccma
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Identity of Employer Gross Irregularity Jurisdiction of Ccma

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poppi Nzingele

Applicant

Pickitup (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Respondent committed a gross irregularity by deciding the identity of the employer before determining jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the parties were denied the opportunity to lead evidence on the identity of the employer.
  3. 3 Whether the finding that the Fourth Respondent was the employer was irrational.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Respondent did not commit any gross irregularity by deciding the identity of the employer before the issue of jurisdiction, as the parties had agreed that this was the central issue. The applicants were afforded the opportunity to lead evidence regarding the employment relationship, and the evidence showed that the Fourth Respondent was a labour broker who employed the applicants and paid their salaries. The Third Respondent was merely a client of the Fourth Respondent, and there was no direct contractual relationship between the applicants and the Third Respondent. The arbitrator's finding was rationally connected to the evidence and did not warrant review...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application for the review of the Second Respondent’s award is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying, the others to be absolved.