Nzingele v Pickitup (Pty) Ltd (JR1480/02) [2007] ZALCJHB 11 (18 September 2007)

Nzingele v Pickitup (Pty) Ltd (JR1480/02) [2007] ZALCJHB 11 (18 September 2007)

The court found that the arbitrator did not commit any gross irregularity by deciding the identity of the employer before jurisdiction, as the parties had agreed that this issue should be determined first. The evidence showed that the Fourth Respondent was a labour broker who employed the applicants and paid their salaries, while the Third Respondent was merely a client. There was no direct contractual relationship between the applicants and the Third Respondent. The applicants were afforded the opportunity to lead evidence, and the arbitrator's finding was rationally connected to the evidence presented. Therefore, there was no basis to set aside the award.

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 11
Parties
Applicant: Poppi Nzingele; Respondent: Pickitup (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2007
Case Number
JR1480/02
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 Broker Relationship
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Identity of Employer Gross Irregularity Jurisdiction of Ccma Labour Broker Relationship

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 2 Authorities cited 1 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 arbitrator 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, and not the Third Respondent, was the employer of the Applicants was irrational.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator did not commit any gross irregularity by deciding the identity of the employer before jurisdiction, as the parties had agreed that this issue should be determined first. The evidence showed that the Fourth Respondent was a labour broker who employed the applicants and paid their salaries, while the Third Respondent was merely a client. There was no direct contractual relationship between the applicants and the Third Respondent. The applicants were afforded the opportunity to lead evidence, and the arbitrator's finding was rationally connected to the evidence presented. Therefore, there was no basis to set aside the award.

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.