Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALC 109; [2002] 5 BLLR 480 (LC) (26 February 2002)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALC 109; [2002] 5 BLLR 480 (LC) (26 February 2002)

The court found that there was no evidence that Mr Nosilela was authorised by the other employees to refer the dispute to the CCMA on their behalf. While the employees signed a list attached to the referral for arbitration, this did not constitute a mandate or power of attorney for the referral of the dispute. The law requires proper authorisation for one employee to act on behalf of others in referring a dispute. The Commissioner’s finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute was incorrect in law and therefore reviewable. The referral in respect of the first respondent, Mr Nosilela, was unaffected.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 109
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines; Respondent: Nosilela; Respondent: Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2002
Case Number
JR381/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The Commissioner’s rulings regarding the referral of the dispute by the 2nd to 22nd respondents are reviewed and set aside. The referral by the first respondent remains unaffected. No order as to costs.
Judges
AA Landman
Legal Topics
Referral of Dispute, Mandate and Authorisation, Joinder of Parties, Ccma Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Referral of Dispute Mandate and Authorisation Joinder of Parties Ccma Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum Mines

Applicant

Nosilela

Respondent

Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Nosilela was authorised to refer the dispute to the CCMA on behalf of the other employees.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute to the CCMA as contemplated in section 191 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd to 22nd respondents could be joined as co-respondents in the dispute referred by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence that Mr Nosilela was authorised by the other employees to refer the dispute to the CCMA on their behalf. While the employees signed a list attached to the referral for arbitration, this did not constitute a mandate or power of attorney for the referral of the dispute. The law requires proper authorisation for one employee to act on behalf of others in referring a dispute. The Commissioner’s finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute was incorrect in law and therefore reviewable. The referral in respect of the first respondent, Mr Nosilela, was unaffected.

Court Disposition

The Commissioner’s rulings regarding the referral of the dispute by the 2nd to 22nd respondents are reviewed and set aside. The referral by the first respondent remains unaffected. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The 23rd respondent's finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute to the CCMA as contemplated in section 191 of the Labour Relations Act is reviewed and set aside.
  • The referral in respect of the first respondent is unaffected by this judgment.