Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 24 (22 January 2002)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 24 (22 January 2002)

The court held that there was no evidence that the 2nd to 22nd respondents had authorised Mr Nosilela to refer the dispute on their behalf. While they signed a list attached to the referral for arbitration, this did not constitute a mandate for the initial referral to the CCMA. The law requires proper authorisation,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 24
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines; Respondent: Nosilela & Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Case Number
JR381/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The Commissioner's findings regarding the referral and joinder of the 2nd to 22nd respondents are reviewed and set aside. The referral in respect of the first respondent remains unaffected. No order as to costs.
Judges
AA Landman
Legal Topics
Referral of Dispute, Mandate to Refer, Joinder of Parties, Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Labour Law Civil Procedure Referral of Dispute Mandate to Refer Joinder of Parties Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Source-derived case record

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 & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an individual employee may refer a dispute to the CCMA on behalf of fellow employees without proper authorisation.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner erred in finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute to the CCMA.
  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 held that there was no evidence that the 2nd to 22nd respondents had authorised Mr Nosilela to refer the dispute on their behalf. While they signed a list attached to the referral for arbitration, this did not constitute a mandate for the initial referral to the CCMA. The law requires proper authorisation, such as a power of attorney or other mandate, for one employee to refer a dispute on behalf of others. The Commissioner’s finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly referred the dispute was therefore incorrect in law and reviewable. The referral in respect of the first respondent, Mr Nosilela, was unaffected.

Court Disposition

The Commissioner's findings regarding the referral and joinder of the 2nd to 22nd respondents are reviewed and set aside. The referral in respect of 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.
  • The 23rd respondent's finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents could be joined as co-respondents in the dispute referred to the CCMA by the first respondent is reviewed and set aside.