Oosthuizen v C.A.N MINING And Engineering suppliers (J1383/97) [1998] ZALC 125 (7 December 1998)

Oosthuizen v C.A.N MINING And Engineering suppliers (J1383/97) [1998] ZALC 125 (7 December 1998)

The Court found that the applicant was not irrevocably bound to the CCMA arbitration process. The evidence supported that the applicant referred the dispute to the bargaining council under the bona fide impression that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, whether by express ruling or general uncertainty. The respondent's participation in CCMA arbitration did not constitute a binding agreement under section 141(1), as there was no conscious agreement to arbitrate a matter otherwise reserved for the Labour Court. Sections 191(6) and 141 do not apply where parties fall within the scope of a bargaining council; section 147(3) governs such situations. The CCMA did not exercise its choice under...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 125
Parties
Applicant: J. P. Oosthuizen; Respondent: C.A.N.MINING&ENGINEERING.SUPPLIEBJ
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 1998
Case Number
J1383/97
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Point in Limine (jurisdictional Challenge)
Outcome
The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. Costs incurred thereby will be costs in the cause.
Judges
Grogan
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Bargaining Council Referral, Operational Requirements Dismissal
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Bargaining Council Referral Operational Requirements 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. P. Oosthuizen

Applicant

C.A.N.MINING&ENGINEERING.SUPPLIEBJ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Court Application / Point in Limine (jurisdictional Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute after referral to the CCMA and Bargaining Council.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is bound to the CCMA arbitration process or may redirect the dispute to the Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's participation in CCMA arbitration constituted an agreement under section 141(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant was not irrevocably bound to the CCMA arbitration process. The evidence supported that the applicant referred the dispute to the bargaining council under the bona fide impression that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, whether by express ruling or general uncertainty. The respondent's participation in CCMA arbitration did not constitute a binding agreement under section 141(1), as there was no conscious agreement to arbitrate a matter otherwise reserved for the Labour Court. Sections 191(6) and 141 do not apply where parties fall within the scope of a bargaining council; section 147(3) governs such situations. The CCMA did not exercise its choice under...

Court Disposition

The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. Costs incurred thereby will be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The respondent's jurisdictional challenge is dismissed.
  • Costs incurred in relation to the point in limine will be costs in the cause.