SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01; J787/02) [2015] ZALCJHB 66 (2 March 2015)

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01; J787/02) [2015] ZALCJHB 66 (2 March 2015)

The court found that the legal effect of a transfer under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act is clear: employment obligations transfer to the new employer unless a valid trilateral agreement is concluded with employee representatives. The respondents' reliance on a bilateral agreement to exclude liability is not supported by the statute. However, there are unresolved factual disputes regarding the true identity of the employer, the alleged fraudulent use of the first respondent's identity, and the knowledge of directors about the court order. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit and require oral evidence. The proceedings are adjourned for the hearing of oral evidence on...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 66
Parties
Applicant: SATAWU obo 212 members; Respondent: Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mohammed Iqbal Parker; Respondent: Kalman Gordon Druker; Respondent: Maurice MUSA MDLODLO; Respondent: Simon Banda; Respondent: Wilson Rich & Associates; Respondent: Stephen Van Diggele; Respondent: Susanna Hendrina Rentzke; Respondent: Chagan Jadav Vaghela; Respondent: Marius Potgieter; Respondent: Mohammed Shaffie Mowzer; Respondent: Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) LTD
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2015
Case Number
JR437/01; J787/02
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Adjournment for Oral Evidence
Outcome
Contempt proceedings adjourned for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
LAGRANGE
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Contempt of Court, Reinstatement, Sale of Business, Default Judgment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Contempt of Court Reinstatement Sale of Business Default Judgment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SATAWU obo 212 members

Applicant

Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mohammed Iqbal Parker

Respondent

Kalman Gordon Druker

Respondent

Maurice MUSA MDLODLO

Respondent

Simon Banda

Respondent

Wilson Rich & Associates

Respondent

Stephen Van Diggele

Respondent

Susanna Hendrina Rentzke

Respondent

Chagan Jadav Vaghela

Respondent

Marius Potgieter

Respondent

Mohammed Shaffie Mowzer

Respondent

Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Adjournment for Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the Labour Court order dated 23 August 2003.
  2. 2 Who is the true employer liable for compliance with the reinstatement order.
  3. 3 Whether liability for compliance with the order was transferred under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the legal effect of a transfer under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act is clear: employment obligations transfer to the new employer unless a valid trilateral agreement is concluded with employee representatives. The respondents' reliance on a bilateral agreement to exclude liability is not supported by the statute. However, there are unresolved factual disputes regarding the true identity of the employer, the alleged fraudulent use of the first respondent's identity, and the knowledge of directors about the court order. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit and require oral evidence. The proceedings are adjourned for the hearing of oral evidence on...

Court Disposition

Contempt proceedings adjourned for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The contempt proceedings are adjourned to a date to be determined by the registrar for the hearing of oral evidence on the true identity of the employer liable for complying with the order of 23 August 2003.
  • Oral evidence to be heard on whether directors of the first respondent knew of the order before being served with the contempt application in 2013.