Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mngomezulu and Another v Nestle South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS235/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 441 (24 November 2017)
The Labour Court found the applicants were automatically unfairly dismissed for exercising section 198 rights and ordered retrospective reinstatement.
Bakulu v Isilumko Staffing (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS105/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 423; [2018] 2 BLLR 169 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 597 (LC) (15 November 2017)
The Labour Court granted absolution from the instance in an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on race, finding no prima facie evidential basis.
Labour Group and Others v SA Dopper (Pty) Ltd (J 1251/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 263; (2014) 35 ILJ 1011 (LC) (14 October 2013)
The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising solely from the cancellation of a labour broking contract between the applicant and respondent, as the contract is a commercial agreement and not an employment contract. The applicant failed to plead jurisdiction in its founding affidavit, and the employees were not properly before the Court. Section 198 of the LRA governs the employment relationship between the labour broker and its employees, but does not extend Labour Court jurisdiction to commercial disputes between brokers and clients. The authorities cited confir…
Source excerpt
MECS Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR455/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 195; (2014) 35 ILJ 745 (LC) (16 August 2013)
The court held that the CCMA has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal disputes involving employees placed by a South African TES with clients outside South Africa. The decisive factor is the locality of the TES's undertaking, which is the procurement and supply of labour in South Africa. The existence of dual employment contracts did not negate the employment relationship with MECS-SA, nor did it transfer jurisdiction to the DRC. The court rejected the argument that MECS-SA acted as agent for MECS-DRC, finding no evidence to support agency. The court respected the separate legal identities of M…
Source excerpt
Daniels v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (JS246/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 115 (6 June 2013)
The Labour Court granted condonation for a 13-day late statement of case in an unfair dismissal dispute involving Standard Bank and EOH.
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v Abancedisi Labour Services CC (JA62/10) [2012] ZALAC 21; [2012] 11 BLLR 1123 (LAC); (2012) 33 ILJ 2824 (LAC) (20 July 2012)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the removal of employees from Kitsanker’s premises by the client did not constitute a dismissal by the respondent within the meaning of section 186(1) of the LRA. The employment contracts were not terminated by the respondent, and the evidence showed that the respondent continued to regard the employees as employed and on its payroll. The contract envisaged the possibility of further assignments, and did not guarantee ongoing work. The respondent was not afforded reasonable time to place the employees elsewhere or commence retrenchment consultations. The unio…
Source excerpt
Walljee and Other v Capacity Outsourcing and Another (D451/09) [2012] ZALCD 2; (2012) 33 ILJ 1744 (LC) (1 January 2012)
The Labour Court refused to join the client company in an automatically unfair dismissal claim, holding that section 198 of the LRA left the claim against the labour broker only.
Nape v Intcs Incorporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (JR617/07) [2010] ZALCJHB 53 (10 March 2010)
The Labour Court held that a labour broker’s retrenchment of an employee at a client’s insistence was substantively unfair, but procedurally fair, and awarded one month’s compensation.
State Information Technology Agency (SITA) (Pty) Ltd v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA 16/2006) [2008] ZALAC 1; [2008] 7 BLLR 611 (LAC); (2008) 29 ILJ 2234 (LAC) (20 March 2008)
The Labour Appeal Court held that SITA, not Inventus CC, was the true employer of the worker and dismissed the appeal with costs.
LAD Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Mandla (CA14/00) [2001] ZALAC 9; 2002 (6) SA 43 (LAC); [2001] 9 BLLR 993 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1813 (LAC) (29 June 2001)
The Labour Appeal Court held that a labour broker was liable as employer under section 198(2) of the LRA, and upheld an unfair dismissal award.
Explore more
