PSA obo Sehloho and Others v NCEDA (C63/15) [2017] ZALCCT 19 (4 May 2017)

PSA obo Sehloho and Others v NCEDA (C63/15) [2017] ZALCCT 19 (4 May 2017)

The court found that the applicants' contracts of employment, as read with Annexure A, entitled them to the listed benefits—medical aid assistance, housing allowance, pension contributions, and a service bonus—payable in addition to their salaries. The employer's argument that these benefits were included in a 'total cost to company' package was not supported by the contract wording or by any evidence that the employees were informed of such an arrangement. The court further held that the dispute was properly reinstated and before the court, as withdrawal does not bar subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the respondent was in breach of the employment contracts and ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 19
Parties
Applicant: PSA obo Sehloho & 2 Others; Respondent: CEO: NCEDA
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2017
Case Number
C63/15
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim / Trial Judgment After Oral Evidence
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants. The respondent is in breach of contract and ordered to pay the specified benefits and costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Contractual Benefits, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Total Cost to Company, Employment Contract Interpretation, Housing Allowance, Service Bonus
Labour Law Contractual Benefits Basic Conditions of Employment Act Total Cost to Company Employment Contract Interpretation Housing Allowance Service Bonus

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PSA obo Sehloho & 2 Others

Applicant

CEO: NCEDA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim / Trial Judgment After Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to payment of medical aid, housing allowance, pension contributions, and service bonus as separate benefits under their contracts of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the employer is in breach of the employment contracts by failing to pay these benefits over and above the salary.
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of the dispute by two applicants was valid and whether the matter was properly reinstated before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' contracts of employment, as read with Annexure A, entitled them to the listed benefits—medical aid assistance, housing allowance, pension contributions, and a service bonus—payable in addition to their salaries. The employer's argument that these benefits were included in a 'total cost to company' package was not supported by the contract wording or by any evidence that the employees were informed of such an arrangement. The court further held that the dispute was properly reinstated and before the court, as withdrawal does not bar subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the respondent was in breach of the employment contracts and ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants. The respondent is in breach of contract and ordered to pay the specified benefits and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is in breach of the terms and conditions of employment of the applicant's members, Mr Bernard Mabele, Ms Yoliswa Sehloho and Mr Denzil Kruger.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay to each of these employees the medical aid contributions, housing allowances, pension contributions and service bonuses stipulated in clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Annexure A to their contracts of employment for the following periods: Bernard Mabale: 1 November 2012 until termination;...