About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZALCJHB 83
|
|
Mills v Group 4 Securicor (J1789/07) [2008] ZALCJHB 83 (27 February 2008)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
Case
no: J1789\07
In
the matter between:
JOHAN
MILLS
Applicant
and
GROUP
4
SECURICOR
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOSHOANA
AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is an application brought in terms of section 158 (1) (c) of the
Act.
Background
facts
[2] On
or about 01 November 2005, the applicant entered into an employment
contract with Group 4 Securicor Global risks limited,
a company
registered in the republic of Ireland. At the time of his employment,
the applicant was seconded to Outsourcing Services
Limited in
Nigeria.
[3] On
or about 18 October 2006, the applicant received a termination letter
from G4 Securicor Nigeria Limited. Such a letter was
signed by the
managing director of that Nigerian company.
[4] As
a result of that dismissal which in terms of the Labour Relations Act
is unfair, the applicant referred the dispute to the
CCMA. On 28
February 2007, a default award was issued against Group 4 Securicor.
[5] On
22 March 2007, a letter of demand was issued against Group 4
Securicor situated at 1204 Schoeman Street 2
nd
Floor G4S Gables Building Hatfield, Pretoria. The company registered
as G4S Security Services (SA) (Pty) Ltd responded to the demand
and
stated that they are not aware of any award against them.
[6] On
17 April 2007, G4S Security Services (SA) (Pty) Ltd then applied for
rescission of the said award. Such an application was
not pursued
further.
[7] On
31 July 2007, the applicant launched this application and served it
on Group 4 Securicor at 1209 Schoeman street 2
nd
floor. This address turned out to be that of G4S Security Services
(SA) (Pty) Ltd. The G4S sought to oppose the application.
The
basis for the application
[8] In
court Mr Van der Walt argued that G4S should be held liable for the
award because of some inapplicable principles of international
law.
Mr Hutchinson for G4S argued that no liability should arise as there
was never an employer and employee relationship between
the applicant
and G4S.
Analysis
[9] A relief in section
158 (1) (c) of the Labour Relations Act is discretionary. The court
can refuse to enforce an award that
is null and void. A party against
whom the award is operative may not challenge such an invalid award
and await any attempt to
enforce it and oppose such.
See:
Botha v Department of Education Limpompo (2007) JOL (208) 22 (LC)
.
Vidavsky
v Body Corporate Sunhill villas
2005 (5) SA 2000
(SCA)
.
[10]
However, what is peculiar about this matter is that the award is not
against G4S but some Group 4 Securicor. The only
reason G4S sought to
oppose this application was because the application was served on it
and Mr Van der Walt argued that they
are liable to pay the amount
stated in the award. As pointed out, this court has a discretion. I
do not see how this court should
exercise its discretion when there
is no evidence to suggest that the party against whom the award is
made (Group 4 Securicor)
refuses to comply with the terms of the
award.
Order
[11]
In the result, I make the following order:
1.
The application in terms of section 158 (1)
(c) fails.
2.
G4S Security Services (Pty) Ltd is not
liable to pay any compensation in terms of an award issued by the
CCMA.
3.
The applicant to pay the costs of G4S
Security Services (Pty) LTD.
________________
Moshoana AJ
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court
Johannesburg
Appearances
For the Applicant
: Mr. Walt
For the Respondent
: Adv Hutchnson
Instructed
by
: Moodie & Robertson
Date of hearing
: 22 February 2008
Date of Judgment
: 27 February 2008