Strauss v CCMA (JR1077/01) [2002] ZALC 82 (20 September 2002)

Strauss v CCMA (JR1077/01) [2002] ZALC 82 (20 September 2002)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the third respondent undertook to double her salary after probation and to review and increase it periodically. The written contract expressly provided for a salary of R4,000 per month and a review on the anniversary date, which contradicted the applicant's alleged verbal terms. The commissioner was entitled to rely on the written contract and draw inferences from the applicant's conduct, including her acceptance of employment at a lower salary and her delay in raising the alleged breach. The absence of written protest regarding the alleged breach further undermined the...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 82
Parties
Applicant: C H Strauss; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2002
Case Number
JR1077/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Contract of Employment, Parol Evidence Rule, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Contract of Employment Parol Evidence Rule Onus of Proof

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C H Strauss

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in dismissing the applicant's claim of unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the third respondent undertook to double her salary after probation and to review and increase it periodically.
  3. 3 Whether the written contract or alleged verbal terms governed the applicant's remuneration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the third respondent undertook to double her salary after probation and to review and increase it periodically. The written contract expressly provided for a salary of R4,000 per month and a review on the anniversary date, which contradicted the applicant's alleged verbal terms. The commissioner was entitled to rely on the written contract and draw inferences from the applicant's conduct, including her acceptance of employment at a lower salary and her delay in raising the alleged breach. The absence of written protest regarding the alleged breach further undermined the...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.