Woolworths (PTY) Ltd v Phala N.O. and Others (JR 2113/21) [2022] ZALCJHB 265 (16 September 2022)

Woolworths (PTY) Ltd v Phala N.O. and Others (JR 2113/21) [2022] ZALCJHB 265 (16 September 2022)

The court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute referred by the union because the issues raised did not fall within the statutory definition of 'unfair labour practice' under section 186(2) of the LRA. The union's demands related to new contractual terms and conditions, such as salary for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 265
Parties
Applicant: Woolworths (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Motlatsi Phala N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: SACCAWU obo Members
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Case Number
JR 2113/21
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judicial Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application for review upheld; CCMA jurisdictional ruling set aside and substituted with dismissal of the referral for want of jurisdiction.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Res Judicata, Collateral Challenge, Provision of Benefits
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Jurisdiction of Ccma Res Judicata Collateral Challenge Provision of Benefits

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woolworths (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Motlatsi Phala N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

SACCAWU obo Members

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judicial Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair labour practice dispute referred by the union.
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised by the union fall within the statutory definition of 'unfair labour practice' under section 186(2) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of res judicata or the rule against collateral challenges precludes the union's referral.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute referred by the union because the issues raised did not fall within the statutory definition of 'unfair labour practice' under section 186(2) of the LRA. The union's demands related to new contractual terms and conditions, such as salary for reduced hours, medical aid membership, retirement age, and severance pay, which are matters of mutual interest and not unfair labour practices. The Labour Court had previously determined that these issues were matters of mutual interest to be resolved through negotiation and power-play, not arbitration. The referral amounted to a collateral challenge to the previous judgment and...

Court Disposition

Application for review upheld; CCMA jurisdictional ruling set aside and substituted with dismissal of the referral for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The jurisdictional ruling issued by the first respondent on 14 September 2021 and case number GAJB 382-21 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The first respondent’s ruling is substituted by: 'The referral is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.'