Skip to main content

Article 20/2026

Within what time period must a party or parties to a plant level collective agreement refer a dispute, concerning the interpretation or application of such plant level collective agreement, to the CCMA for resolution?

_____________________________________

  • The leading case in this regard is MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King (King) (Case No D2110/18).
  • At paragraph [48] of the King judgment, the following was stated:
    • with reference to Hospersa obo Tshambi v Department of Health, KZN [2016] 7 BLLR 649 (LAC), the court held that, despite s24 of the LRA not prescribing the period within which an interpretation or application dispute must be referred to the CCMA, such dispute must be referred within a reasonable time
    • so, what is reasonable? – s191(1) of the LRA provides the yardstick to test what is a reasonable time – the maximum period of 90 days to refer a dispute relating to unfair conduct on the part of the employer constitutes a reasonable time
    • if the dispute is referred outside such yardstick, an application for condonation must be made
    • to determine whether or not a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of a plant level collective agreement was referred within a reasonable time, the following factors must, inter alia, be considered:
      • the nature of the dispute referred
      • the history of the engagement between the parties on the subject matter of the dispute
      • the time elapsed in attempting to resolve the matter
      • the time it took the party who referred the dispute, with reference to the period after the parties ceased to engage regarding the dispute
    • in short, the whole period covering the dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the plant level agreement must be explained and accounted for

Concluding remarks

  • From the above, it is apparent that a reasonable time period is applicable within which a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of a plant level collective agreement must be referred to the CCMA.
  • And what happens if such reasonable time period has not been complied with – according to the King judgment (supra), an application for condonation must be brought. However, herein lies a further problem not dealt with in such judgment, namely, on what statutory provision can a commissioner of the CCMA rely when considering such an application for condonation?  In our view, there is currently no provision in the LRA granting the CCMA the jurisdiction to deal with such applications for condonation.
August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?