South Africa Case Law

Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (JR2748/22)

Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (JR2748/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 96 (7 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2748/22

Judge

L Erasmus

The Labour Court granted Arcelormittal leave to appeal against a ruling upholding an essential-services designation. The court found the issue important and open to differing interpretation.

• Essential Services Definition
• Right To Strike
• Section 213 Lra
• Health And Safety
• Constitutional Rights
• Essential-services

Kiyega v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C818/2016)

Kiyega v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C818/2016) [2017] ZALCCT 70 (29 September 2017)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C818/2016

Judge

Moshoana

The applicant failed to present a compliant affidavit setting out legal grounds for review, rendering the application fatally defective. On the merits, the applicant did not provide credible evidence of an employment relationship with the third respondent. He did not demonstrate remuneration, either in cash or in kind, nor did he establish that he was subject to supervision or control, integrated into the organisation, or economically dependent on the third respondent. The presumption in section 200A of the LRA was not triggered due to lack of evidence. The eviction letter was issued in the c…

Source excerpt

• Employment Relationship
• Jurisdictional Ruling
• Section 213 Lra
• Section 200a Lra
• Payment In Kind
• Review Test

Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v PUTCO Limited (CCT94/15)

Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v PUTCO Limited (CCT94/15) [2016] ZACC 7; (2016) 37 ILJ 1091 (CC); [2016] 6 BLLR 537 (CC); 2016 (4) SA 39 (CC); 2016 (7) BCLR 858 (CC) (8 March 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT94/15

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Van der Westhuizen J, Nugent AJ, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that PUTCO’s lock-out of TAWUSA members was unlawful because TAWUSA was not party to the bargaining-council dispute.

• Lock Outs
• Collective Bargaining
• Majoritarianism
• Section 64 Lra
• Section 213 Lra
• Extension Of Collective Agreements

Protect A Partner (Pty) Ltd v Machaba-Abiodun and Others (JR2062/2010)

Protect A Partner (Pty) Ltd v Machaba-Abiodun and Others (JR2062/2010) [2012] ZALCJHB 56; (2013) 34 ILJ 392 (LC) (22 June 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2062/2010

Judge

Gaibie

The Labour Court held that the reality test, as developed in South African labour jurisprudence, requires consideration of control, integration, and economic dependence, but no single factor is decisive. The evidence showed that Abiodun was subject to the authority of the applicant, received regular remuneration, was integrated into the organisation, and her primary income was from the applicant. The disciplinary proceedings, provision of office resources, and her role in management and governance further supported the existence of an employment relationship. The Court found that Abiodun sati…

Source excerpt

• Definition Of Employee
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Reality Test
• Director Status Under Lra
• Employment Relationship
• Section 213 Lra

Close v SHINN FU (Pty) Ltd SA and Others (JR 1092/02)

Close v SHINN FU (Pty) Ltd SA and Others (JR 1092/02) [2004] ZALC 17 (13 February 2004)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR 1092/02

Judge

Ndlovu

Labour Court review of a CCMA jurisdiction ruling was upheld because the commissioner failed to consider material affidavits and misapplied the CCMA rules.

• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Definition Of Employee
• Review Of Commissioner Ruling
• Section 213 Lra
• Section 158 1 G Lra
• Ccma-jurisdiction