Roger Transport and Distribution CC and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1293/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 210 (28 August 2013)

Roger Transport and Distribution CC and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1293/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 210 (28 August 2013)

The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner clearly established that the third respondent was employed by the first applicant, Rogers Transport and Distribution CC. The third respondent's belief in an employment relationship with the second applicant was based solely on circumstantial factors, such as the location of his work and signage, which did not constitute sufficient evidence for joinder. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to join the second and third applicants was unreasonable and must be set aside. However, the court held that the jurisdictional ruling—that the incident arose within the jurisdiction of the CCMA in KwaZulu Natal—was reasonable and not reviewable.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 210
Parties
Applicant: Rogers Transport and Distribution CC; Applicant: ALS Hardware (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: ALS Hardware Kokstad; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Patrick Stillwell; Respondent: Chris Siphiwe Sefoloko
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2013
Case Number
JR1293/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Rulings
Outcome
The ruling joining the first, second, and third applicants in the CCMA proceedings is reviewed and set aside. The respondent in the CCMA proceedings is substituted with Rogers Transport and Distribution CC. No order as to costs.
Judges
Edmonds
Legal Topics
Joinder, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Joinder Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rogers Transport and Distribution CC

Applicant

ALS Hardware (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

ALS Hardware Kokstad

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Patrick Stillwell

Respondent

Chris Siphiwe Sefoloko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the joinder of the first, second, and third applicants in the CCMA proceedings was reasonable on the evidence before the Commissioner.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA at Kokstad had jurisdiction over the dispute between the third respondent and the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner's rulings are reviewable under the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner clearly established that the third respondent was employed by the first applicant, Rogers Transport and Distribution CC. The third respondent's belief in an employment relationship with the second applicant was based solely on circumstantial factors, such as the location of his work and signage, which did not constitute sufficient evidence for joinder. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to join the second and third applicants was unreasonable and must be set aside. However, the court held that the jurisdictional ruling—that the incident arose within the jurisdiction of the CCMA in KwaZulu Natal—was reasonable and not reviewable.

Court Disposition

The ruling joining the first, second, and third applicants in the CCMA proceedings is reviewed and set aside. The respondent in the CCMA proceedings is substituted with Rogers Transport and Distribution CC. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The ruling handed down by the second respondent under CCMA Case Number KNPM3839-10 to the effect that the first applicant is joined in the CCMA proceedings together with the third and second applicants is reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order that the respondent in the proceedings under CCMA Case...
  • There is no order as to costs.