Article 19/2024

In what instances does the jurisdiction of the supreme court of appeal trump the jurisdiction of the labour appeal court?

_____________________________________

  • Section 168(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa reads as follows:
    • ‘The Supreme Court of Appeal may decide appeals in any matters arising from the High Court of South Africa or a Court of a status similar to the High Court of South Africa, except in respect of labour or competition matters to such an extent as may be determined by an Act of Parliament.’
  • In terms of s173(1)(a) of the LRA, the labour appeal court has, subject to the Constitution, and despite any other law, exclusive jurisdiction to hear all appeals against final judgments and final orders of the labour court.
  • With reference to the George Randell High School judgment (Article 18/2024), it is submitted that, when it comes to ‘labour matters’, the labour appeal court, apart from the constitutional court, is the highest court and, in all other matters dealing with labour issues (i e where the LRA or any other Act of Parliament has not conferred final jurisdiction on the labour appeal court), the supreme court of appeal retains its appeal jurisdiction in respect of such matters.
  • When is a matter a labour matter? – it is submitted that it covers disputes governed by the LRA, such as unfair dismissals and unfair labour practices, as well as causes of action founded in terms of section 23 of the Constitution (i e the right to fair labour practices).
  • In conclusion:
    • where a matter is not a labour matter (i e not a matter in terms of the LRA or s23 of the Constitution), or the matter is a labour matter where the final jurisdiction of the labour appeal court has not been confirmed, the supreme court of appeal retains its appeal jurisdiction – even if the labour appeal court has adjudicated the matter (being a court of similar status in term so s168(3)(a) of the Constitution.

What are the principles governing the vicarious liability of an employer for acts committed by an employee in breach of the EEA, in terms of s60 of the EEA?

The scenario is as follows: only employees working at a bakery and not employees working at a mill were party to the disputes when referred to conciliation.  At arbitration, the union wanted to join the employees working at the mill.

Is such joinder permissible?

What is the test for unfair discrimination formulated in Harksen v Lane and consistently applied subsequently by the various courts, including, recently, Premier FMCG (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Ribbon Bakery v FAWU (2022) 33 SALLR 277 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1584 (LC)?