Damages counterclaim allowed: Related to employment

Rand Water v Stoop

Damages counterclaim allowed by LAC and overturned decision of the labour court which did not believe that the employer had a right to counterclaim for damages based on delict.

“This is an appeal against the finding by the Labour Court that it had no jurisdiction to determine the appellant’s damages claims against the first and second respondents because the claims did not concern a contract of employment, or a contract of employment as envisaged by s 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997 (hereafter the “BCEA”), and that the Labour Court, in any event, had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages against the respondents.” [para 1]

Overview

“Firstly, the argument that s77(3) of the BCEA only permits the Labour Court to interpret the terms of an employment contract and enforce it, is neither reasonable nor logical. This is demonstrably clear when regard is had to s77A(e) of the BCEA which sets out the remedy the Labour Court may grant in respect of a dispute referred to it in respect of a dispute arising out of an employment contract. Secondly, the meaning ascribed to the word “concerning” in the relevant phrase in s77(3) is acceptable save that attributing “having proximity to”, to the word “concerning” cannot be correct. The word “concerning” while conveying a cause and effect does not convey a meaning that some causes and effects are acceptable and others not or that there has to be a direct or indirect link between the contract of employment and the claim.” [para 30]