Vice v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Others (J1315/97) [1998] ZALC 89 (28 October 1998)

Vice v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Others (J1315/97) [1998] ZALC 89 (28 October 1998)

The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant in his founding affidavit constituted valid grounds for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The allegations of gross irregularity, excess of powers, errors of law, and denial of legal representation were either unsubstantiated or did not fall within the statutory grounds for review. The commissioner correctly applied section 198(2) of the Act in determining that the third respondent was the applicant's employer. The applicant's attempt to challenge the award amounted to an appeal disguised as a review, which is impermissible. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 89
Parties
Applicant: Dan Vice; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: B N O Jammy; Respondent: M D Engineering and Contracting Services; Respondent: G E A Aircooled Systems (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 1998
Case Number
J1315/97
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
R M M Zondo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Temporary Employment Services, Review of Arbitration Award, Legal Representation, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Temporary Employment Services Review of Arbitration Award Legal Representation Costs Order

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dan Vice

Applicant

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

B N O Jammy

Respondent

M D Engineering and Contracting Services

Respondent

G E A Aircooled Systems (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in determining the applicant's employer.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner erred in finding that only the third respondent was the employer and not the fourth respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied legal representation in a manner constituting a reviewable irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant in his founding affidavit constituted valid grounds for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The allegations of gross irregularity, excess of powers, errors of law, and denial of legal representation were either unsubstantiated or did not fall within the statutory grounds for review. The commissioner correctly applied section 198(2) of the Act in determining that the third respondent was the applicant's employer. The applicant's attempt to challenge the award amounted to an appeal disguised as a review, which is impermissible. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the second, third, and fourth respondents.