Pam Goldings Properties (Pty) Ltd v Erasmus and Others (C455/07) [2009] ZALC 135; (2010) 31 ILJ 1460 (LC) (4 December 2009)

Pam Goldings Properties (Pty) Ltd v Erasmus and Others (C455/07) [2009] ZALC 135; (2010) 31 ILJ 1460 (LC) (4 December 2009)

The court held that the commissioner did not commit a material error of law or a reviewable irregularity in his approach to determining whether Erasmus was an employee or an independent contractor. The commissioner applied the multi-factoral 'dominant impression' test, considered the factors in section 200A of the LRA, and evaluated the evidence in accordance with established jurisprudence. The court found that Erasmus was subject to the applicant's supervision and control, formed an integral part of the organisation, and was economically dependent on the applicant. These factors, in line with the State Information Technology Agency test, supported the finding that Erasmus was an...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 135
Parties
Applicant: Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Denise Erasmus; Respondent: Adv Koen de Kock; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2009
Case Number
C455/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Employee Definition, Independent Contractor, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Dominant Impression Test, Presumption of Employment, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employee Definition Independent Contractor Jurisdiction of Ccma Dominant Impression Test Presumption of Employment 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Denise Erasmus

Respondent

Adv Koen de Kock

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Erasmus was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the constructive dismissal dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner applied the correct legal test in determining employment status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner did not commit a material error of law or a reviewable irregularity in his approach to determining whether Erasmus was an employee or an independent contractor. The commissioner applied the multi-factoral 'dominant impression' test, considered the factors in section 200A of the LRA, and evaluated the evidence in accordance with established jurisprudence. The court found that Erasmus was subject to the applicant's supervision and control, formed an integral part of the organisation, and was economically dependent on the applicant. These factors, in line with the State Information Technology Agency test, supported the finding that Erasmus was an...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.