Sibiyta and Others v Amalgamated Beverages Industries Limited and Others (D656/99) [2001] ZALC 1; [2001] 10 BLLR 1171 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 961 (LC) (8 January 2001)

Sibiyta and Others v Amalgamated Beverages Industries Limited and Others (D656/99) [2001] ZALC 1; [2001] 10 BLLR 1171 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 961 (LC) (8 January 2001)

The court found that the commissioner misconceived the central issue by focusing on whether the applicants were casual or permanent employees, rather than determining whether a dismissal had occurred under section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence established that the applicants were employed by the first respondent and that their employment was terminated when the respondent ceased using casual labour. The distinction between casual and permanent employment was irrelevant to the existence of a dismissal. The commissioner’s award was therefore legally incorrect and unjustifiable. The delay in filing the review application was explained by financial constraints and procedural...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 1
Parties
Applicant: MN Sibiyta; Applicant: BV Gazu; Applicant: AZ Nene; Applicant: AM Zondo; Applicant: MI Ndwandwe; Respondent: Amalgamated Beverages Industries Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mr I Moodley
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 January 2001
Case Number
D656/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Condonation granted for late filing; commissioner's award reviewed and set aside; applicants found to have been dismissed; matter referred to CCMA for determination of fairness; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Maserumule
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Employee Definition, Condonation, Jurisdiction of Commissioner
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Employee Definition Condonation Jurisdiction of Commissioner

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MN Sibiyta

Applicant

BV Gazu

Applicant

AZ Nene

Applicant

AM Zondo

Applicant

MI Ndwandwe

Applicant

Amalgamated Beverages Industries Limited

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mr I Moodley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' late filing of the review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner correctly determined the existence of a dismissal under section 186 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were employees as defined by the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner misconceived the central issue by focusing on whether the applicants were casual or permanent employees, rather than determining whether a dismissal had occurred under section 186 of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence established that the applicants were employed by the first respondent and that their employment was terminated when the respondent ceased using casual labour. The distinction between casual and permanent employment was irrelevant to the existence of a dismissal. The commissioner’s award was therefore legally incorrect and unjustifiable. The delay in filing the review application was explained by financial constraints and procedural...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for late filing; commissioner's award reviewed and set aside; applicants found to have been dismissed; matter referred to CCMA for determination of fairness; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late service and filing of the application.
  • The award handed down by the third respondent dated 20 July 1998 is reviewed and set aside.