Phelps v CCMA (JR676/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 5 (16 October 2001)

60 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review of CCMA ruling — Dismissal and jurisdiction — Applicant dismissed and referred dispute to CCMA, claiming unfair retrenchment and duress in signing settlement agreement — CCMA commissioner ruled no dispute existed due to signed settlement, asserting lack of jurisdiction over contractual disputes — Court held that the validity of the contract was peripheral to the unfair dismissal claim and that the commissioner erred in dismissing the referral — Ruling reviewed and set aside, matter referred back to CCMA for determination of dispute's status and conciliation.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2001
>>
[2001] ZALCJHB 5
|

|

Phelps v CCMA (JR676/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 5 (16 October 2001)

[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO:  JR676/01
DATE:
2001.10.16
In the matter between
SUSAN J
PHELPS                                                                                                     Applicant
and
CCMA                                                                                                                     Respondent
J U
D G M E N T
LANDMAN,
J:
Susan Phelps applies to
review and set aside a ruling of a CCMA commissioner.
It appears that Susan
Phelps was dismissed by her employer.  She referred a dispute to
the CCMA.  The matter came before
the first respondent, a
commissioner of the CCMA, for conciliation. The employer took the
point that there was no dispute because
a settlement agreement had
been signed. Ms Phelps claimed that her retrenchment was procedurally
and substantively unfair, and
that she had signed the settlement
agreement under duress. If indeed she had signed the settlement
agreement under duress then
the dispute was alive and should have
been the subject of an attempt at conciliation.
The commissioner,
however, precluded herself from determining whether or not a
settlement agreement had been concluded without duress.
She concluded
that the CCMA did not have the jurisdiction to decide contractual
disputes.  This could only be done by the
Labour Court. In
consequence she dismissed Ms Phelps' referral to the CCMA.
The commissioner has
committed a gross irregularity because the dispute before her was not
about the validity of the contract. The
validity of the contract was
merely peripheral in determining whether or not a dispute regarding
an alleged unfair dismissal was
alive or not. It was competent for
the commissioner to have decided the matter.
In
the circumstances the ruling is reviewed and set aside. The matter is
referred back to the CCMA to determine whether or not the
dispute is
alive, and if it is alive, to attempt to conciliate the dispute.
___________________
A
A Landman
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
---ooo0ooo---
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK