• Law Reports
  • Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration …

Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1594/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 1 (5 February 2002)

50 Reportability
Labour Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Conciliation — Jurisdiction of the CCMA — Applicant, a former employer, contested the validity of a settlement agreement reached at the CCMA, arguing it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The CCMA had conciliated a dispute regarding operational requirements, despite lacking jurisdiction. The applicant claimed manipulation and doubts about the Commissioner's objectivity during the proceedings. The court held that while the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, the agreement should not be set aside solely on that basis; however, given the applicant's concerns and evidence of manipulation, the agreement was ultimately set aside.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2002
>>
[2002] ZALCJHB 1
|

|

Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1594/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 1 (5 February 2002)

[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/ssl
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO:  JR1594/01
DATE:
2002-02-05
In
the matter between
M
MKHWANAZI                                                                                                          Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION

1
ST
Respondent
ABE
MATHEBULA

2
ND
Respondent
JOSIAH
MATHEBULA                                                                                    3
RD
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS
J
:
1.
The applicant, Maria Mkhwanazi, who is the former employer of the
second and third respondents owns a taxi business.  A
dispute
arising from alleged operational requirements arose between the
parties and the matter was referred to the Commission for

Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration which did not have
jurisdiction to hear such matters, nonetheless conciliated the matter

and a settlement agreement was reached under its auspices.
2.
It is argued on behalf of the applicant that because the CCMA did not
have jurisdiction to conciliate the matter the agreement
derived in
terms thereof should be set aside.
3.
An agreement reached under those circumstances should not necessarily
be set aside for lack of jurisdiction, but the dispute
was such that
the Commissioner who tried to conciliate the matter made input that
is required from  Commissioners in such
circumstances. These may
not have been correct because the Commissioner was not supposed to
deal with such matters, or is precluded
to deal with such matters.
This
per se
is not fatal to the proses.
4.
Furthermore there is undisputed evidence that the applicant felt that
she was manipulated to a certain extent to sign the agreement.
She
also expressed her doubts about the objectivity of the Commissioner
who conducted the proceedings.  This is also not disputed
by the
employees in this matter.
5.
In the circumstances the agreement dated on 29 August 2000
reached between the parties hereto is set aside.
______________________
E.
Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK

Back to Law Reports