Article 46/2024

LabourEdge

What is the approach to be adopted to determine whether or not the CCMA (or relevant bargaining council) or the labour court has jurisdiction where a person is dismissed outside the territorial waters of the Republic of South Africa?

_____________________________________

Locality of undertaking where the employee is employed approach

  • The labour appeal court, in Astral Operations v Parry (2008) 29 ILJ 2668 (LAC), followed the approach adopted in Genrec Mei v Industrial Council for Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industry 1995 (1) SA 563 (A), to the effect that the locality of the undertaking where the employee was employed is the determinative factor in establishing the jurisdiction of the CCMA or the labour court.
  • The said approach was subsequently followed in Sorrell v Petroplan (2023) 34 SALLR 3 (LC).

The undertaking outside South Africa considered as separate and divorced from the South African undertaking approach

  • On the other hand, the labour appeal court, in Monare v SA Tourism (2016) 37 ILJ 394 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 894 (LC), adopted a different approach and identified that the real question is an investigation as to whether or not the operation outside South Africa is a separate and divorced operation from the South African operation – a positive answer in the above regard would indicate that the LRA is not applicable, whereas, on the other hand, a negative answer in the above regard would indicate that the LRA is applicable.
  • The aforesaid approach of the labour appeal court was subsequently followed in Robineau v Schenker SA (Pty) Ltd (2020) 31 SALLR 149 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 1648 (LAC).

A different approach applicable to labour brokers?

  • The labour court, in MECS Africa (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (2014) 35 ILJ 745 (LC), however, indicated that, when considering whether or not the CCMA has jurisdiction to hear disputes referred to it by employees of a South African labour broking service when so placed outside the borders of South Africa, the test to be applied is, in line with the Astral judgment (supra) (LAC), the following: where is the locality of the employer’s undertaking in which the employee works? – seeing that the labour broker conducts its labour broking business at the place where it recruits and procures labour and not the place where its clients have operations, the CCMA, in this case, had jurisdiction over employees of the labour broker employed by the client in the Democratic Republic of Congo
  • The labour court, in Sorrell (supra), disagreed with the approach adopted in the aforesaid judgment.
March 10, 2025

What is an employer to do when it suspects that a medical practitioner is issuing pre- signed sick notes, or permitting its employees to buy sick notes, or, alternatively, is engaging in some other dubious practice regarding the issue of sick notes? What is an employer to do when it suspects that a person is not entitled to practice as a medical doctor?

March 7, 2025

Are you required to interpret any of the following: pre-trial minutes, strike ballot guidelines, the LRA, a separation agreement, a benefits dispute, an arbitration award, the BCEA, a restraint of trade, a traditional disciplinary enquiry charge sheet, the constitution of a trade union, etc?

March 4, 2025

The labour appeal court recently, in Murray and Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd v AMCU obo Dube and Others (2024) 35 SALLR 116 (LAC), confirmed important principles relating to the formulation of traditional charge sheets, determining the
fairness of a dismissal, the interpretation of a charge sheet and the reason(s) relied upon by the employer to justify the dismissal of an employee.