Walljee and Other v Capacity Outsourcing and Another (D451/09) [2012] ZALCD 2; (2012) 33 ILJ 1744 (LC) (1 January 2012)

Walljee and Other v Capacity Outsourcing and Another (D451/09) [2012] ZALCD 2; (2012) 33 ILJ 1744 (LC) (1 January 2012)

The court held that, as the applicants were employed by the first respondent (a labour broker), and there was no allegation that the first respondent contravened any of the provisions of section 198(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the second respondent (Conlog) was not jointly or severally liable for the alleged unfair dismissal. The applicants' cause of action lies only against the labour broker, not the client. Therefore, the second respondent does not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings, and joinder is not warranted.

Citation
[2012] ZALCD 2
Parties
Applicant: Ruweyda Chantel Walljee; Applicant: Treven Rajoo; Applicant: Melissa Moonsamy; Respondent: Capacity Outsourcing; Respondent: Conlog
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2012
Case Number
D451/09
Procedural Posture
Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Respondent, Heard Together With Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Application for joinder of the second respondent dismissed with costs.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Labour Broker Liability, Joinder of Parties, Section 198 Lra
Labour Law Automatic Unfair Dismissal Labour Broker Liability Joinder of Parties Section 198 Lra

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruweyda Chantel Walljee

Applicant

Treven Rajoo

Applicant

Melissa Moonsamy

Applicant

Capacity Outsourcing

Respondent

Conlog

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Respondent, Heard Together With Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent (Conlog) should be joined as a party to the proceedings regarding alleged automatically unfair dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a cause of action against the client of a labour broker under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act in cases of dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, as the applicants were employed by the first respondent (a labour broker), and there was no allegation that the first respondent contravened any of the provisions of section 198(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the second respondent (Conlog) was not jointly or severally liable for the alleged unfair dismissal. The applicants' cause of action lies only against the labour broker, not the client. Therefore, the second respondent does not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings, and joinder is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for joinder of the second respondent dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for joinder of the second respondent is dismissed with costs.