You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court >>
2002 >>
[2002] ZALAC 21
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Help]
Qavile v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA2/02) [2002] ZALAC 21 (4 October 2002)
.RTF of original document
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT CAPE TOWN)
Case No: PA 2/02
In the matter between
QAVILE, SC
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
First Respondent
DE KOCK, C, N.O.
Second Respondent
DAIMLER CHRYSLER (SA) (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
Du Plessis AJA:
[1]
In September 1999 the Appellant was dismissed from the service of the Third Respondent after a disciplinary inquiry relating to the
unauthorised use of a company vehicle.
[2]
Contending that the dismissal was substantively unfair, the Appellant referred the dispute to the First Respondent (the CCMA). The
matter was referred to arbitration before the Second Respondent (the arbitrator). The arbitrator found the dismissal to have been
unfair and ordered the Appellant’s reinstatement.
[3]
In terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) the Third Respondent (the employer) applied
to the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitrator’s award. The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the reward. It
further remitted the matter to the CCMA “for a fresh arbitration before another Commissioner on the issue of the appropriateness
of the sanction” of dismissal.
[4]
With the leave of the Labour Court the Appellant noted an appeal to this Court against the whole of that court’s judgment and
order. When the matter was called before us Mr Gauntlett for the Third Respondent argued in limine that the order of the Labour Court is not subject to appeal and for that reason alone that the appeal must be dismissed. Due to a
misunderstanding between counsel and the Court, counsel made submissions only as regards the point in limine. Accordingly this judgment deals only with that point. If needs be, the matter can be set down again for argument on the other issues
raised in the appeal.
[5]
In terms of section 166 of the Act a party has a right of appeal (subject to leave being granted) against “any final judgment
or final order of the Labour Court”. Mr Gauntlett submitted that the Labour Court’s order in this case was not a final
order.
[6]
Mr Gauntlett developed the argument as follows: A review by the Labour Court of arbitration proceedings under the auspices of the
CCMA is governed by section 145 of the Act. Section 145(4) of the Act provides:
(4)??If the award is set aside, the Labour Court may—
(a)
determine the dispute in the manner it considers appropriate; or
(b)
make any order it considers appropriate about the procedures to be followed to determine the dispute.
By remitting the matter to the CCMA, counsel’s argument continued, the Labour Court did not determine the dispute between the
parties in terms of section 145(4)(a). It made an order in terms of section 145(4)(b) about the procedure to be followed to determine
the dispute and thus, by definition, did not determine the dispute. Once it is accepted that the Labour Court did not determine the
dispute between the parties, it follows, so the argument concluded, that the order it made cannot be final.
[7]
In order for us to deal with counsel’s argument it is first necessary to determine the nature of the dispute before the Labour
Court. Section 145(1) of the Act provides:
“A party to a dispute who alleges a defect in any arbitration proceedings under the auspices of the Commission may apply to the Labour Court for an order setting aside the arbitration award ...” (Underlining supplied)
As is evident from the underlined words the issue before a labour court in review proceedings primarily is whether there has been
a defect in the arbitration proceedings. Only if it determines that issue in favour of the party seeking the review and sets aside
the arbitration award, may the labour court determine the underlying dispute between the parties to the arbitration (Section 145(4)(a)
of the Act quoted above.). The labour court is not obliged however to determine the underlying dispute after it has set aside the
arbitration award. It has a discretion to make an order in terms of section 145(4)(b) instead.
[8]
In this case the Third Respondent followed exactly the procedure envisaged in section 145(4): Its first prayer in its notice of motion
in the Labour Court was for that Court to review and set aside the arbitrator’s award. In its second prayer the Third Respondent
sought from the Labour Court such order as it “deems appropriate for the further conduct of the proceedings” regarding
the underlying dispute about the fairness or otherwise of the Appellant’s dismissal.
[9]
It is clear from the provisions of section 145 and also from the notice of motion in this case that the issue before the Labour Court
was whether the arbitrator’s award should be reviewed and set aside. Only after it so acted could, and did, the Labour Court
exercise a discretion not to determine the underlying dispute but to remit it to the CCMA. Accordingly, counsel’s argument
that by remitting the matter to the CCMA the Labour Court did not determine the dispute before it cannot be upheld. The Labour Court
determined the review dispute and then exercised a discretion as to the determination of the underlying dispute.
[10]
It remains to decide whether the Labour Court’s judgment and order was final. In terms of section 20(1) of the Supreme Court
Act, 59 of 1959 “a judgment or order” of a high court is subject to appeal. Mr Gauntlett’s argument proceeded on
the basis that the words “final judgment or final order” in section 166 of the Act bear essentially the same meaning
as do the words “judgment or order” in section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act. As we did not have the benefit of full
argument on this point, I specifically refrain from deciding whether the words in the two acts bear the same meaning and have the
same practical effect. It is for present purposes sufficient to state that if a judgment or order has the following attributes, it
will clearly be final within the meaning of section 166 of the Act: If it is “final in effect and not susceptible of alteration
by the Court of first instance”; if it is “definitive of the rights of the parties”; if it has “the effect
of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed” in the proceedings in respect of which the judgment was
given or the order made. (See Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) at 532J to 553A; See also Steenkamp v South African Broadcasting Corporation 2002 (1) SA 625 (SCA).)
[11]
The Labour Court’s order reviewing and setting aside the arbitrator’s award was final and not susceptible to alteration
by the Labour Court. It is definitive of the rights of the parties as regards the alleged defect in the arbitration proceedings and
the review of the arbitrator’s award. The order disposes of the main relief claimed in the review application, namely to review
and set aside the arbitrator’s award.
[12]
In the result it is concluded that the judgment and order of the Labour is subject to appeal and the Third Respondent’s argument
in limine cannot succeed.
[13]
Due to the misunderstanding to which I have made reference, we have not had the benefit of argument on the costs relating to the point
in limine. In the circumstances the costs must be reserved to be determined when the matter proceeds.
The following order is made:
1
The Third Respondent’s point in limine is dismissed. It is held that the judgment and order of the Labour Court is subject to appeal.
2
The costs are reserved.
B.R. du Plessis
Acting Judge of the Labour Appeal Court
I agree.
R.M.M Zondo
Judge President of the Labour Court
I agree.
D.M. Davis
Acting Judge of the Labour Appeal Court
Date of hearing: 26 September 2002
Date of Judgement:
4 October 2002
For appellant: Adv P.N. Kroon
Instructed by: Drake, Flemmer & Orsmond Inc.
For respondent: Adv J.J. Gauntlett SC
Instructed by: Linde, Dorrington & Kirchmann Inc.
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALAC/2002/21.html
