1. SASLAW SEMINAR 24 APRIL 2012 Name of presenter: Craig Bosch
Title of Presentation: Jurisdictional issues in the CCMA

2. Jurisdiction to conciliate
There must be a ‘dispute’ which may be referred to the CCMA for conciliation
What if the dispute has allegedly been settled?
There must be no bargaining council with jurisdiction over the parties to the dispute, unless the CCMA has assumed jurisdiction in terms of s147
There must have been proper service on the other party/ies and the referral from must have been properly completed

3. Jurisdiction to conciliate
Must the applicant be an ‘employee’?
Yes: Seeff Residential Properties v Mbhele NO & others (2006) 27 ILJ 1940 (LC); EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & another (2008) 29 ILJ 2588 (LC); Virgin Active SA (Pty) Ltd v Mathole NO & others(2002) 23 ILJ 948 (LC) and Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2009) 30 ILJ 2903 (LAC)
No: Bombardier Transportation (Pty) Ltd v Mtiya NO & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2065 (LC) - this is not a ‘true jurisdictional issue’

4. Jurisdiction to conciliate
If something is a true jurisdictional issue when must it be determined?
Bombardier Transportation (Pty) Ltd v Mtiya NO & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2065 (LC) – commissioners have an election to defer decisions on certain jurisdictional points to arbitration
Difficulties with this
Is the point practically moot in any event?
What is NOT required: proof that an applicant was ‘dismissed’ or has a claim that in fact relates to a ‘promotion’ or ‘demotion’ or ‘benefit’

5. Jurisdiction to arbitrate
A dispute that remains unresolved. Here it becomes relevant whether or not the matter has been settled. And commissioners have the power to determine that if it is contested.
The employee must have been ‘dismissed’ (see SA Rugby Players Association & others v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd & others; SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd v SA Rugby Players Association (2008) 29 ILJ 2218 (LAC); University of Pretoria v CCMA & others (2012) 33 ILJ 183 (LAC) or have a claim that falls within the parameters of the ULP definition in s186(2) (see IMATU obo Verster v Umhlathuze Municipality & others (2011) 32 ILJ 2144 (LC))
But should this be so?: Asara Wine Estate & Hotel (Pty) Ltd v Van Rooyen & others (2012) 33 ILJ 363 (LC)

6. Jurisdiction to arbitrate
The dispute must have been referred for arbitration or a late referral must have been condoned
The dispute must have been referred for conciliation
What is the significance of any certificate that has been issued?
Fidelity Guards Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Epstein NO & others (2000) 21 ILJ 2382 (LAC) read with EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & another (2008) 29 ILJ 2588 (LC); IMATU obo Verster v Umhlathuze Municipality & others (2011) 32 ILJ 2144 (LC); Velinov v University of Kwazulu-Natal & others (2006) 27 ILJ 177 (LC)
But see Bombardier Transportation (Pty) Ltd v Mtiya NO & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2065 (LC)

7. Jurisdiction to arbitrate
Dispute must have been referred for arbitration (continued)
Cases other than those relating to a lack of condonation at conciliation: Avgold - Target Division v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2010) 31 ILJ 924 (LC); Bombardier Transportation (Pty) Ltd v Mtiya NO & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2065 (LC) and Parliament of RSA v NEHAWU obo members & others (2011) 32 ILJ 2534 (LC)
CCMA Guidelines on Misconduct Arbitrations item 24

8. The review of decisions on jurisdiction
SA Rugby Players Association & others v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd & others; SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd v SA Rugby Players Association (2008) 29 ILJ 2218 (LAC): the test is correctness
Is that correct?
Consider: Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1425 (LAC) and Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others (2009) 30 ILJ 829 (SCA)