Pecton Outsourcing Solutions CC v Pillemer NO (D1256/13) [2015] ZALCD 66; [2015] JOL 34585 (LC) (12 November 2015) per B Whitcher J at para 43.
I prefer an approach that starts by examining, in all cases where the termination of TES contracts of employment are triggered by the will of a client, whether the underlying cause of the termination, in relation to the TES employer, is one for which employees typically are dismissed. These are reasons relating to misconduct, incapacity, operational requirements or no reason at all. In this determination, the courts should recognise the content of the reason for the termination over the form of the contractual device covering it. If the facts show that the reason for termination of the contract is one that typically constitutes a reason for a dismissal, then this is a clue that, as the commissioner succinctly put it, there may be an attempt to ‘contract out’ of section 188 of the LRA. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the termination thus becomes a dismissal and the underlying reasons for it will be ventilated in forums the LRA has set aside for this purpose.
Reported: [2016] 2 BLLR 186 (LC)
Headnote:
Also reported (2016) 37 ILJ 693 (LC)
Once and for all rule: Jurisdiction and causes of action
The labour court refused to uphold various preliminary objections raised by the labour broker. 205 applicants based their claim for wages on breach of contract by a labour broker who provided employees to Unilever. Wages were reduced by the labour broker on the insistence of Uniliver. A dispute was referred to the CCMA on 17 July 2013. On 23 July 2013 Unilever ended its contract with the labour broker who then terminated the services of the 205 applicants. The dismissal dispute was referred to the CCMA. On review the labour court held that it should have been adjudicated. An appeal to the LAC is pending. The labour broker contended that the real dispute was an alleged unfair labour practice and that the labour court lacked jurisdiction. But the pleaded claim falls within the jurisdiction of the labour court. In other words the ‘once and for all rule’ did not apply in this instance.
Shozi v Pecton Investments CC t/a Pecton Outsourcing Solutions (D935/15) [2016] ZALCD 14 (29 June 2016) per Whitcher J.