Thiso and Others v Moodley NO and Others (JR2209/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 533 (2 December 2014)

Thiso and Others v Moodley NO and Others (JR2209/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 533 (2 December 2014)

The court held that the arbitrator erred in finding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. The Labour Appeal Court in Apollo Tyres broadened the definition of 'benefit' under section 186(2)(a) to include advantages or privileges granted at the employer's discretion, not limited to contractual or statutory rights. The applicants' dispute, although relating to the upgrading of job positions and thus potentially a matter of mutual interest, also falls within the scope of unfair labour practice concerning benefits. Employees may elect to pursue either collective bargaining or arbitration for such disputes. The arbitrator's reliance on outdated authority was incorrect, and...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 533
Parties
Applicant: N M Thiso & 6 Others; Respondent: T Moodley N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Rand Water
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2014
Case Number
JR2209/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
The CCMA's jurisdictional ruling is reviewed and set aside; replaced with a ruling that the CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair labour practice dispute. Costs awarded against the third respondent.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Ccma Jurisdiction, Benefits, Promotion, Collective Bargaining, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Ccma Jurisdiction Benefits Promotion Collective Bargaining Review of Arbitration Award

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N M Thiso & 6 Others

Applicant

T Moodley N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Rand Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate an unfair labour practice dispute relating to the upgrading of job positions.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute concerns a matter of mutual interest or a dispute of right under section 186(2)(a) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator applied the correct legal principles in determining jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator erred in finding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute. The Labour Appeal Court in Apollo Tyres broadened the definition of 'benefit' under section 186(2)(a) to include advantages or privileges granted at the employer's discretion, not limited to contractual or statutory rights. The applicants' dispute, although relating to the upgrading of job positions and thus potentially a matter of mutual interest, also falls within the scope of unfair labour practice concerning benefits. Employees may elect to pursue either collective bargaining or arbitration for such disputes. The arbitrator's reliance on outdated authority was incorrect, and...

Court Disposition

The CCMA's jurisdictional ruling is reviewed and set aside; replaced with a ruling that the CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair labour practice dispute. Costs awarded against the third respondent.

Orders

  • The jurisdictional ruling of 26 July 2013 under case number GAJB 6010-12 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is replaced with a ruling that the CCMA does have jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair labour practice dispute in terms of section 186(2)(a) of the LRA on its merits.