[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-502880-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-502880-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","jr-73816-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-judgement","JR 738/16 - Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg - Judgement","","Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, considers an application to review and set aside a CCMA commissioner’s jurisdiction ruling that dismissed the employer’s point in limine. The dispute concerns unfair discrimination and equal pay for equal work under the Employment Equity Act 1998, where more than one applicant employee seeks arbitration after failed conciliation. The court applies a correctness review test to the objective question of CCMA’s power, addressing whether section 10(6)(aA) permits plural employee participation or limits the option to singular individual referrals.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/jr-73816-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-judgement/502880/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/jr-73816-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-judgement/502880.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"dabgoudw","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the purpose of this Labour Court application?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To review and set aside a CCMA commissioner’s ruling dismissing the employer’s jurisdiction point in limine.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What dispute type is at issue?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"An unfair discrimination complaint relating to equal pay for equal work contemplated in the Employment Equity Act 1998.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What legal test does the court apply to the jurisdiction question?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"A correctness test: whether, objectively, the CCMA has the power to arbitrate the dispute.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},502880,1791057496,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":117},3985747860484,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA  \nLABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG  \nJUDGEMENT  \nReportable  \nCase No: JR 738/16  \nIn the matter between:  \nFAMOUS BRANDS MANAGEMENT  \nCOMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant  \nand  \nCOMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,  \nMEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent  \nRICHARD BYRNE Second Respondent  \nSCMAWU obo MAGOLEGO & 632 OTHERS Third Respondent  \nHeard: 12 July 2016  \nDelivered: 29 July 2016  \nSummary: Review of jurisdictional ruling – test of correctness – section 10(6)(aA) of EEA allows CCMA to arbitrate an unfair discrimination dispute concerning equal pay for equal work involving more than one applicant, where they earn less than the amount determined by the Minister.  \nJUDGEMENT  \nVAN DER MERWE, AJ  \n[1] This is an application for the reviewing and setting aside of a ruling of a commissioner of the CCMA that had dismissed the employer’s point in limine on the issue of jurisdiction.  \n[2] Although it came before this Court as unopposed, the issue raised is important and as far as counsel for the applicant and the Court could tell anew one.  \n[3] The point originally raised by the employer before the CCMA was that the CCMA did not have jurisdiction , as the dispute in question was a collective dispute that could not be heard by the CCMA in terms of section 10(6)(aA) of the Employment Equity Act 1998 (“EEA”) .  \n[4] The employer contended and maintains that the aforementioned provision allows only individual disputes to be arbitrated before the CCMA and that“collective” disputes have to be referred to this Court for adjudication. In other words, that “employee” as found in the aforementioned section means singular only and does not allow more than one employee to together approach the CCMA for arbitration.  \n[5] The matter originally before the CCMA was a complaint of unfair discrimination in regard to equal pay for equal work as contemplated in the EEA.  \n[6] The nub of the employer’s case appears to be that the arbitrator’s conclusion that the CCMA did have jurisdiction to hear the complaint or complaints of the  \n632 individual employees involved was a conclusion which a reasonable arbitrator could not have reached alternatively , was a gross irregularity and/or overstepping of powers.  \n[7] For purposes of this application , I shall accept that the Applicant is entitled to pursue a review on a jurisdictional point despite the existence of the recently added section 10(8) of the EEA , namely, that a person effected by an award made by a CCMA commissioner may appeal against that award to this Court. In any event, the test would be the similar.  \n[8] I am mindful of section 158(1)(B) of the Labour Relations Act 1995 (“LRA”) which indicates that this Court may not review any decision or ruling made during arbitration proceedings conducted under the auspices of the CCMA before the issue in dispute has been finally determined. The provision , however, does allow this Court to deal with a review before final outcome of the arbitration, where the Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable todo so. I exercise my discretion to hear this matter at this point because of the large number of persons involved (the size of the case) and because the point raised, as far as I could determine, is yet untested in our law.  \n[9] In as far as the Applicant is relying on a jurisdictional issue and/or an error of law pertaining to jurisdiction , the applicable review test is that of correctness.1 Does the CCMA, objectively speaking, have the power to arbitrate this matter?2  \n[10] More specifically: Does the CCMA have jurisdiction to, after failed conciliation, arbitrate a dispute concerning alleged unfair discrimination involving so-called equal pay for equal work where more than one complaining employee are involved?  \n1 Mashego v Cellier NO and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 994 (LC) at para 14. SARS v Ntshintshi and Others (2014) 35 ILJ 255 (LC) .  \n2 SA Rugby Players Association v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd and Others (2008) 29","cbCaihWnotbDdccS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihWnotbDdccS","pdf",291120,"English","# Summary\n# Background and procedural history\n# Employer’s jurisdictional argument\n# The review test (correctness)\n# Key statutory question for CCMA authority","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of this Labour Court application?\",\"answer\":\"To review and set aside a CCMA commissioner’s ruling dismissing the employer’s jurisdiction point in limine.\"},{\"question\":\"What dispute type is at issue?\",\"answer\":\"An unfair discrimination complaint relating to equal pay for equal work contemplated in the Employment Equity Act 1998.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal test does the court apply to the jurisdiction question?\",\"answer\":\"A correctness test: whether, objectively, the CCMA has the power to arbitrate the dispute.\"}]","JR 738/16 - Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg - Judgement | PDF",1791045228]