Constitutional Courtroom Discovering: The Excessive Courtroom And The Labour Courtroom Have Concurrent Jurisdiction On The Illegal Termination Of Employment Contracts – Employment and HR

South Africa:

Judgment of the Constitutional Court: The Supreme Court and the Labor Court are simultaneously responsible for the unlawful termination of employment contracts

To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com.

In a unanimous judgment dated December 4, 2020 in the Baloyi v Public Protector and others case (CCT03 / 20)
[2020] ZACC 27, the Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court and the Labor Court have simultaneous jurisdiction to negotiate matters related to an alleged unlawful termination of an employment contract.

The facts

On February 1, 2019, Ms. Baloyi was appointed to the Office of Public Protector (Public protector) as Chief Operations Officer with a fixed-term contract for five years. By contract, Ms. Baloyi would be on probation for six months until July 31, 2019. The office of public protector could terminate the contract if it is not satisfied with its standard of service.

Ms. Baloyi’s probationary period was uneventful. But on October 8, 2019, about two months later, Vussy Mahlangu (Mr. Mahlangu), the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Protector, addressed a letter to Ms. Baloyi asking her to comment on confirming her permanent position with the Public Protector. Mrs Baloyi did so in writing. On October 21, 2019, Ms. Baloyi received another letter from Mr. Mahlangu stating that the Public Protector could not confirm her permanent position and that her contract would be terminated as of October 31, 2019.

Ms. Baloyi appealed to the High Court urgently, claiming that the termination of her employment contract was, among other things, unlawful. She petitioned the High Court for an order stating that the decision to terminate her employment contract was unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid and ineffective and that the decision was set aside.

Ms. Baloyi’s application to the High Court was unsuccessful. The High Court ruled that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and that Ms. Baloyi should have sought relief from the Labor Court. According to the High Court, Ms. Baloyi had made allegations of a labor dispute under the Labor Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (LRA) and the employment contract itself pointed to the LRA as a tool to enforce their rights. You have therefore chosen the wrong place of jurisdiction to raise your dispute.

Ms. Baloyi then appealed directly to the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court found that the crucial question was whether the Supreme Court wrongly found that it had no jurisdiction over Ms. Baloyi’s case. The Constitutional Court refused to consider Ms. Baloyi’s main dispute as the main issue had not yet been discussed in a lower court.

The law

In examining the appeal, the Constitutional Court found that the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters except those which, inter alia, have been assigned by law to another court with a similar status to the High Court. During this examination, the court found the following:

• Section 157 (1) LRA provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor court in all matters to be determined by the labor court. However, the section does not provide for general jurisdiction of the labor court in labor matters. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the High Court would not be displaced by Section 157 (1) LRA just because a dispute falls within the overall scope of employment relationships.
• Section 157 (2) (a) of the LRA provides that the Labor Court and the High Court have simultaneous jurisdiction over any alleged or threatened violation of a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution and arising from employment and industrial relations.
• In addition, Section 77 (3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 as amended (BCEA) provides that the labor court has jurisdiction with the civil courts at the same time for all matters related to an employment contract, regardless of whether one of the basic working conditions is a provision of that employment contract.

The legal objection that the court therefore had to examine was whether Section 157 (1) and (2) LRA had extended the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor court for an allegedly illegal termination of a fixed-term employment contract. In order to determine whether the High Court had jurisdiction to rule on Ms. Baloyi’s lawsuit, it was necessary to determine whether the lawsuit was such that it was to be decided solely by the Labor Court within the meaning of the LRA or the BCEA. The Court confirmed that the assessment of the jurisdiction of a court must be based on the submissions made by one applicant and not on the merits of the case.

The findings of the court

• The court found that Ms. Baloyi’s plea arose out of contract law, public law and constitutional law. On the contract front, Ms. Baloyi argued that the contract was terminated prematurely long after the probationary period ended. In addition, the contract stipulated that her employment relationship would be considered confirmed if the employer neither confirmed the contract nor terminated it after the agreed deadline.
• The High Court had made a holistic assessment of whether the dispute was part of labor law. Instead, it was up to the High Court to determine whether the specific causes of action cited by Ms. Baloyi fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Labor Court.
• The Constitutional Court has confirmed that the same facts can give rise to several different causes of action. In a labor law context, in which a dismissal dispute can lead to more than one cause of action, a party involved in the litigation must choose the cause of action he wishes to pursue and prepare his / her pleadings accordingly. If Ms. Baloyi had wanted to file a lawsuit for unjustified dismissal, she would have been obliged to turn to the arbitration, arbitration and arbitration commission or the labor court according to Section 157 (1) LRA. Just because Ms. Baloyi is free to pursue an unjustified discharge claim does not mean that she was obliged to do so.
• The termination of an employment relationship has the potential to create a right to relief for violation of the LRA and a right to enforce a contractual right that does not originate from the LRA. The labor court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases where this is required by law, where a litigant is asserting a right under the LRA or invoking a cause of action based on a breach of an obligation contained in the LRA.
• Consequently, the mere fact that a dispute is in the field of labor and employment does not preclude the jurisdiction of the High Court, as contractual rights exist independently of the LRA. Section 23 of the Basic Law does not deprive employees of the customary right to enforce the terms of a fixed-term employment contract. In addition, the LRA does not limit workers to the LRA’s remedies for unwarranted dismissals.

The purpose of this case is to confirm that the manner in which a plaintiff chooses a plea determines whether or not the High Court and Labor Court have simultaneous (or, in the latter case, exclusive) jurisdiction over a dispute. In circumstances where a plaintiff alleges that an employment contract has been unlawfully terminated and / or violated by an employer, he / she is free to seek redress in the High Court or the Labor Court.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. Expert advice should be sought regarding your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and Personnel from South Africa

Guide to Comparing Work and Employment

ENAfrica

Comparative Labor and Employment Guide for the South African Jurisdiction

CCMA process

Adams & Adams

The Commission on Arbitration, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) promotes fair practices in the work environment and ensures that any labor disputes that fall under its jurisdiction …

Exceptions from the Labor Code

Corpus lawyers

On May 11, 2020, the Minister of Labor enacted the Labor Code (Exemption) Regulations, Legal Instrument No. 48 of 2020, pursuant to Section 2 (2) of Act No. 3 of the Labor Code of 2019 (the “ECA”).