South Africa Case Law

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/23)

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/23) [2024] ZALCCT 45 (4 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

CA 02/2023

Judges

Savage, Mlambo, Davis

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court correctly found it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the appellant's claims. The appellant's workplace, as defined in the Independent Contractor Agreement and confirmed by his own evidence, was Mozambique. The fact that the respondent's principal place of business is South Africa and that the appellant worked from home due to delays and visa issues did not alter the contractual and factual position that the services were to be rendered in Mozambique. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the physical workp…

Source excerpt

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Temporary Employment Services
• Protected Disclosure
• Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Damages

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/2023)

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/2023) [2024] ZALAC 48; [2024] 12 BLLR 1285 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 128 (LAC) (4 October 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA02/2023

Judges

Savage ADJP, Mlambo JA, Davis AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court's territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the physical workplace where the employee renders services, not by the location of the employer's business or the place where the employment contract was concluded. The appellant's Independent Contractor Agreement specified Mozambique as the workplace, and his services were to be performed for clients in Mozambique and the United Kingdom. Although the appellant worked from home in South Africa due to delays and visa issues, this did not alter the contractual and factual position that…

Source excerpt

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Temporary Employment Services
• Protected Disclosure
• Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Damages

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

Bata SA (Pty) Limited and Another v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA4/2022)

Bata SA (Pty) Limited and Another v SACTWU obo Members and Others (DA4/2022) [2024] ZALAC 15; (2024) 45 ILJ 1541 (LAC); [2024] 8 BLLR 866 (LAC) (23 April 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA4/2022

Judges

Waglay JP, Coppin JA, Savage AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 198D of the Labour Relations Act does not empower the CCMA to grant substantive relief such as monetary awards or quantification of back pay in disputes concerning less favourable treatment of deemed employees. The section is intended to provide a process for determining the status of employment relationships and for granting declaratory relief regarding whether employees are deemed employees of the client and whether they have been treated less favourably. Once such declaratory relief is granted, aggrieved employees may pursue further remedies, inclu…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Services
• Deemed Employment
• Unequal Treatment
• Ccma Jurisdiction
• Labour Relations Act Interpretation

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Arcelormittal South Africa Limited and Others (JR1051/20)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Arcelormittal South Africa Limited and Others (JR1051/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 333 (30 September 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1051/20

Judge

Mahosi

The Labour Court held that NUMSA’s dispute concerned enforcement of a plant-level collective agreement under section 33A, and dismissed the review.

• Collective Agreements
• Jurisdictional Review
• Extension Of Collective Agreements
• Co Employment
• Temporary Employment Services
• Labour-law

Bravo Group Manufacturing (PTY) Ltd t/a Gommagoma v SACTWU and Other Persons (D407/21)

Bravo Group Manufacturing (PTY) Ltd t/a Gommagoma v SACTWU and Other Persons (D407/21) [2021] ZALCD 84 (7 July 2021)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D407/21

Judge

Moshoana

The Court held that the referral of the dispute to the CCMA was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act for a protected strike, regardless of whether conciliation occurred or the CCMA declined jurisdiction. The demand by SACTWU to terminate the commercial contract with Workforce was clear, lawful, and did not require renegotiation of employment terms for deemed employees, as section 198A(5) ensures their rights as permanent employees. The collective agreement did not expressly prohibit a strike over this demand, and section 65(1)(a) and section 65(3)(a)(i…

Source excerpt

• Protected Strike
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Temporary Employment Services
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Section 64 Lra
• Section 65 Lra

Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality v Mandosela and Others (JA29/2020)

Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality v Mandosela and Others (JA29/2020) [2021] ZALAC 14; [2021] 10 BLLR 994 (LAC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2168 (LAC) (2 July 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA29/2020

Judges

Waglay JP, Savage AJA, Molefe AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court erred in substituting the arbitrator's award of three months' compensation with twelve months' compensation. The arbitrator's discretion in determining compensation was not exercised capriciously, on a wrong principle, with bias, or without reason. There was no factual or legal basis for the Labour Court's interference, and the employment period relevant for compensation was limited to the last fixed-term contract. The court further found that the first respondents were not deemed permanent employees of the appellant during the second period…

Source excerpt

• Fixed Term Contracts
• Unfair Dismissal
• Compensation Quantum
• Temporary Employment Services
• Review Of Arbitration Award

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

Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mokadi and Others (JR895/16)

Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mokadi and Others (JR895/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 80 (2 February 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR895/16

Judge

S July

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA award that applied sections 198A and 200B to an outsourcing arrangement, finding the reasoning irrational.

• Temporary Employment Services
• Deeming Provisions
• Co Employer Liability
• Outsourcing Agreements
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Labour-law

NUMSA v Assign Services and Others (JA96/15)

NUMSA v Assign Services and Others (JA96/15) [2017] ZALAC 44; (2017) 38 ILJ 1978 (LAC); [2017] 10 BLLR 1008 (LAC) (10 July 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA96/15

Judges

Waglay, Tlaletsi, Phatshoane

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 198A(3)(b) creates a sole-employer relationship: once the threshold is met, the client becomes the employer for LRA purposes.

• Temporary Employment Services
• Deeming Provision
• Sole Vs Dual Employment
• Section 198a Interpretation
• Vulnerable Worker Protection
• Statutory Employment Relationship