September and Others v CMI Business Enterprise CC (CCT279/16) [2018] ZACC 4; 2018 (4) BCLR 483 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 987 (CC); [2018] 5 BLLR 431 (CC) (27 February 2018)

September and Others v CMI Business Enterprise CC (CCT279/16) [2018] ZACC 4; 2018 (4) BCLR 483 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 987 (CC); [2018] 5 BLLR 431 (CC) (27 February 2018)

The majority held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because, although the referral form described the dispute as unfair discrimination, the substance of the dispute—constructive dismissal due to racial discrimination—was canvassed during conciliation. The Court found that the referral documents and certificate of outcome are prima facie evidence of the nature of the dispute, but where the true nature is disputed, evidence from conciliation proceedings may be admitted to clarify the substance. Rule 16 of the CCMA Rules does not render evidence as to the nature of the dispute privileged, as such evidence is merely descriptive and does not relate to the...

Citation
[2018] ZACC 4
Parties
Applicant: Theo September; Applicant: Dean September; Applicant: Roland Paulsen; Respondent: CMI Business Enterprise CC
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Case Number
CCT279/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Labour Appeal Court; Application for Leave to Appeal; Merits Decided
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Appeal Court order set aside; default judgment of Labour Court restored; no order as to costs.
Judges
Zondo DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Zondi AJ
Legal Topics
Conciliation Privilege, Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Racial Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Interpretation of Ccma Rules
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Conciliation Privilege Automatically Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Racial Discrimination Jurisdiction of Labour Court +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theo September

Applicant

Dean September

Applicant

Roland Paulsen

Applicant

CMI Business Enterprise CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Labour Appeal Court; Application for Leave to Appeal; Merits Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute of automatically unfair constructive dismissal when the referral to conciliation was for unfair discrimination.
  2. 2 Whether evidence from conciliation proceedings may be admitted to determine the nature of the dispute conciliated under rule 16 of the CCMA Rules (pre-2015 amendment).
  3. 3 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted and subject to rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because, although the referral form described the dispute as unfair discrimination, the substance of the dispute—constructive dismissal due to racial discrimination—was canvassed during conciliation. The Court found that the referral documents and certificate of outcome are prima facie evidence of the nature of the dispute, but where the true nature is disputed, evidence from conciliation proceedings may be admitted to clarify the substance. Rule 16 of the CCMA Rules does not render evidence as to the nature of the dispute privileged, as such evidence is merely descriptive and does not relate to the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Appeal Court order set aside; default judgment of Labour Court restored; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.