Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1594/01) [2002] ZALC 112 (5 February 2002)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Conciliation Agreement — Jurisdiction — Applicant challenging validity of settlement agreement reached at CCMA due to lack of jurisdiction — Court finding that lack of jurisdiction does not automatically invalidate agreement — Evidence of manipulation and doubts about objectivity of Commissioner leading to setting aside of agreement.

Sneller Verbatim/ssl
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO: JR1594/01
2002-02-05
In the matter between
M MKHWANAZI Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1ST Respondent
2ND Respondent
3RD 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.
1. 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