SAB v CCMA and Others (J 5767/00) [2002] ZALC 146; [2002] 9 BLLR 894 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1467 (LC) (19 June 2002)

SAB v CCMA and Others (J 5767/00) [2002] ZALC 146; [2002] 9 BLLR 894 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1467 (LC) (19 June 2002)

The court held that the existence of a collective agreement requiring dismissal disputes to be referred to private arbitration deprived the CCMA of jurisdiction over the dispute. The CCMA's condonation ruling was granted without the applicant being served or given an opportunity to make representations, and the condonation application was made out of time. The jurisdiction ruling similarly failed to consider the primacy of the collective agreement. Both rulings constituted gross irregularities and were set aside. The applicant was entitled to relief as the CCMA had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 146
Parties
Applicant: SAB; Respondent: CCMA & Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Case Number
J 5767/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The condonation and jurisdiction rulings are reviewed and set aside. The CCMA had no jurisdiction to conciliate or arbitrate the dispute.
Judges
D B Ntsebeza
Legal Topics
Collective Agreements, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Condonation, Private Arbitration, Review of Arbitral Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreements Jurisdiction of Ccma Condonation Private Arbitration Review of Arbitral 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAB

Applicant

CCMA & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to conciliate and/or arbitrate the dispute under case reference NP10324.
  2. 2 Whether the condonation ruling granted by the second respondent was valid and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the jurisdiction ruling by the third respondent was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the existence of a collective agreement requiring dismissal disputes to be referred to private arbitration deprived the CCMA of jurisdiction over the dispute. The CCMA's condonation ruling was granted without the applicant being served or given an opportunity to make representations, and the condonation application was made out of time. The jurisdiction ruling similarly failed to consider the primacy of the collective agreement. Both rulings constituted gross irregularities and were set aside. The applicant was entitled to relief as the CCMA had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The condonation and jurisdiction rulings are reviewed and set aside. The CCMA had no jurisdiction to conciliate or arbitrate the dispute.

Orders

  • The condonation ruling given by the second respondent in respect of case reference NP10324 on 30 October 2000 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The jurisdiction ruling given by the third respondent in respect of case reference NP10324 on 1 December 2000 is reviewed and set aside.