Scheme Data Services (Pty) Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JR1456/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 12 (10 December 2008)

Scheme Data Services (Pty) Ltd v Myhill NO and Others (JR1456/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 12 (10 December 2008)

The court found that the Rand Water judgment was incorrect in law and that section 191(12) of the LRA clearly confers jurisdiction on the CCMA to arbitrate disputes concerning both procedural and substantive fairness in dismissals for operational requirements of a single employee. The first respondent, acting as commissioner, had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. On the merits, the applicant failed to consult with the third respondent regarding alternatives to retrenchment, as required by section 189(3) of the LRA. The third respondent could not have waived a right she was unaware of, and the failure to consult was fatal to the applicant's case. The award of compensation to the third...

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 12
Parties
Applicant: Scheme Data Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Myhill N.O, E; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Simpson, G
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2008
Case Number
JR1456/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ngalwana AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements Retrenchment, Procedural Fairness, Ccma Jurisdiction, Section 189 Consultation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Retrenchment Procedural Fairness Ccma Jurisdiction Section 189 Consultation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scheme Data Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Myhill N.O, E

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Simpson, G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute concerning procedural fairness in a dismissal for operational requirements of a single employee.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's award was reasonable and should be set aside on review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant consulted with the third respondent on alternatives to retrenchment as required by section 189 of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Rand Water judgment was incorrect in law and that section 191(12) of the LRA clearly confers jurisdiction on the CCMA to arbitrate disputes concerning both procedural and substantive fairness in dismissals for operational requirements of a single employee. The first respondent, acting as commissioner, had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. On the merits, the applicant failed to consult with the third respondent regarding alternatives to retrenchment, as required by section 189(3) of the LRA. The third respondent could not have waived a right she was unaware of, and the failure to consult was fatal to the applicant's case. The award of compensation to the third...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.