Although claims under the LRA and the BCEA are distinct and based upon different causes of action, can they be heard in a single hearing before the labour court?
The labour appeal court recently, in Baise v Mianzo Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (2019) 30 SALLR 158 (LAC), held as follows: Civil claims are entertained because of the concurrent jurisdiction of the labour court with the high court and that competence is not susceptible to being blended with remedies sought under the LRA. Claims under both regimes can indeed be heard in a single hearing, but the claims themselves remain distinct, along with the need to discern distinct causes of action.
In the scenario where an employee alleges that, as a result of a misrepresentation by his or her employer, a termination agreement was concluded, why, according to the labour appeal court in Baise v Mianzo Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (2019) 30 SALLR 158 (LAC), would it be the wrong approach to seek a declarator that the agreement is void and what should be the correct approach?
It is settled law that an arbitrator of the CCMA or a bargaining council may peal away the husk of allegations and deal with the real dispute. On what basis did the labour appeal court, in Baise v Mianzo Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (2019) 30 SALLR 158 (LAC), recently find that the same approach is not applicable when a contractual dispute is referred to the labour court?