Thorburn Security Solutions v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 898/2012) [2013] ZALCCT 26 (21 June 2013)

Thorburn Security Solutions v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 898/2012) [2013] ZALCCT 26 (21 June 2013)

The court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the employee and his union referred the matter as an unfair dismissal for misconduct, not as an automatically unfair dismissal based on trade union activities. The arbitrator correctly determined that the true reason for dismissal was the refusal to work an additional shift, not victimisation for union activity. The company's reliance on 'emergency work' and 'overtime' was misplaced, as the employment contract and sectoral determination did not entitle the employer to require the employee to work an extra shift under the circumstances. The arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair was...

Citation
[2013] ZALCCT 26
Parties
Applicant: Thorburn Security Solutions; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Ralph Alexander N.O.; Respondent: SATAWU Obo Mzimkulu Maboza
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Case Number
C 898/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Substantive Fairness, Emergency Work, Sectoral Determination, Code of Good Practice Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Substantive Fairness Emergency Work Sectoral Determination Code of Good Practice Dismissal

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thorburn Security Solutions

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Ralph Alexander N.O.

Respondent

SATAWU Obo Mzimkulu Maboza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee for refusing to work an additional shift was substantively unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the employee and his union referred the matter as an unfair dismissal for misconduct, not as an automatically unfair dismissal based on trade union activities. The arbitrator correctly determined that the true reason for dismissal was the refusal to work an additional shift, not victimisation for union activity. The company's reliance on 'emergency work' and 'overtime' was misplaced, as the employment contract and sectoral determination did not entitle the employer to require the employee to work an extra shift under the circumstances. The arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.