South Africa Case Law

Motha v Commission For Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR827/2022)

Motha v Commission For Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR827/2022) [2024] ZALCJHB 320 (18 July 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR827/2022

Judge

GC Phakedi

The court found that the applicant's review application was moot because he was no longer employed by any of the respondents, and thus could not pursue relief under section 198A(3)(b)(i) of the LRA. The issues raised were neither complex nor of sufficient importance to warrant deviation from the doctrine of mootness. Even if the jurisdictional ruling were set aside, the applicant would not be able to enforce any claim against the respondents. The applicant failed to establish grounds for review based on misconduct or gross irregularity, and the court declined to entertain the matter further.…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdictional Ruling
• Mootness
• Section 198a Lra
• Condonation
• Review Test Correctness

CMC Global Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Niekerk and Others (JR408/22)

CMC Global Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Niekerk and Others (JR408/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 198 (8 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR408/22

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court held that after three months of placement, section 198A(3)(b) of the LRA deems the client (RTT) to be the sole employer, and no dual employment relationship exists with the TES (CMC). However, there was no evidence that RTT dismissed the first respondent; the removal from RTT was initiated by CMC, which acted under the mistaken belief that it remained the employer. The first respondent voluntarily entered into a new employment contract with CMC, and his subsequent dismissal by CMC for operational requirements was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The compensation aw…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Services
• Section 198a Lra
• Unfair Dismissal
• Compensation Award
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Operational Requirements Retrenchment

Mzukwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C276/2020)

Mzukwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C276/2020) [2024] ZALCCT 4; (2024) 45 ILJ 865 (LC); [2024] 4 BLLR 404 (LC) (25 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C276/2020

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the Commissioner misconstrued the applicable legal test and failed to properly interpret the substance of the relationship between AFMS and the NPA. The evidence showed that AFMS provided the applicant to work for the NPA for reward, and the SLA required compliance with NPA policies and procedures, indicating overall control by the NPA. The applicant was not performing a temporary service and was integrated into the NPA’s workplace. The Commissioner’s reliance on whether the SLA was a ‘sham’ was misplaced; the correct test was whether the statutory requirements for a TES…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Service
• Section 198a Lra
• Condonation
• Equal Remuneration
• Integration Into Client Workplace

Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (D1280/19)

Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (D1280/19) [2021] ZALCD 68; (2021) 42 ILJ 2411 (LC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1222 (LC) (13 August 2021)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D1280/19

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA ruling on uniforms, holding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction after a settlement made the employees permanent.

• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Settlement Agreement
• Section 198a Lra
• Interpretation And Application Disputes
• Ccma-jurisdiction
• Section-198a

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v PFG Building Glass and Another (JS 996/18)

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa v PFG Building Glass and Another (JS 996/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 159 (25 August 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 996/18

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court dismissed NUMSA’s declaratory application about temporary employment services, holding the dispute was unsuitable for oral evidence and should have gone to the CCMA.

• Temporary Employment Services
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Declaratory Relief
• Section 198a Lra
• Referral To Ccma
• Temporary-employment-services

Mandonsela and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1754/18)

Mandonsela and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1754/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 45 (13 February 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1754/18

Judge

A Patel

The court found that the arbitrator's award of three months' compensation was not just and equitable given the applicants' length of service and the circumstances of their dismissal. The court held that compensation equal to twelve months' remuneration was appropriate. Reinstatement was not reasonably practicable as the third respondent never intended to employ the applicants permanently and the work was of limited duration. Regarding the TES dispute, the court determined that the fourth respondent was not a temporary employment service provider and no tripartite relationship existed between…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Compensation Awards
• Temporary Employment Service
• Section 198a Lra
• Section 193 Lra

Assign Services (Pty) Limited v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (CCT194/17)

Assign Services (Pty) Limited v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others (CCT194/17) [2018] ZACC 22; [2018] 9 BLLR 837 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1911 (CC); 2018 (5) SA 323 (CC); 2018 (11) BCLR 1309 (CC) (26 July 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT194/17

Judges

Zondo DCJ, Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Goliath AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Petse AJ, Theron J

The majority held that section 198A(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, when triggered, creates a sole employment relationship between the placed worker and the client for the purposes of the LRA. The deeming provision in section 198A(3)(b) operates to replace the TES as employer with the client, and the two deeming provisions in sections 198(2) and 198A(3)(b) cannot operate simultaneously. This interpretation is supported by the statutory language, context, and the constitutional purpose of protecting vulnerable workers. The majority found that the sole employer model promotes certainty, secu…

Source excerpt

• Labour Broking
• Section 198a Lra
• Sole Vs Dual Employer
• Employment Status
• Collective Bargaining
• Fair Labour Practices