IN THE INDUSTRIAL
COURT OF SWAZILAND
HELD
AT MBABANE CASE
NO. 559/06
In
the matter between:
ZANELE
MAGAGULA & ANOTHER Applicant
and
JOMAR
INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD
t/a
SHAMROCK BUTCHERY Respondent
CORAM:
P.
R. DUNSEITH: PRESIDENT
JOSIAH
YENDE: MEMBER
NICHOLAS
MANANA: MEMBER
FOR
APPLICANT: S. DLAMINI
FOR
RESPONDENT: NO
APPEARANCE
JUDGE
M
E
NT-12/02/06
1.
The
Applicants have applied for their unresolved labour dispute with the
Respondent to be referred to compulsory arbitration under the
auspices of the Commission for Mediation, Arbitration and
Conciliation
("CMAC")
in terms of the powers vested in the President of the Industrial
Court under section 8(8) of the Industrial Relations Act 2000 (as
amended).
2.
The Respondent filed notice of intention to oppose the application,
but did not file any written reasons for opposition, nor did the
Respondent's representative appear at the hearing of the application
to orally motivate its opposition.
3.
In their application for determination of the unresolved dispute,
the Applicants aver that their wages were underpaid during the
period of their employment, and they were subsequently dismissed
without any fair reason. They are claiming backpay, terminal
benefits, and compensation for unfair dismissal.
4.
In its Reply, the Respondent avers that the Applicants were casual
employees who worked less than 20 hours per week. Consequently they
are not employees to whom section 35 of the Employment Act 1980 (as
amended) applies and the Respondent is not required by law to
furnish fair reasons for the termination of their services. Further,
the alleged underpayment of wages is denied.
5.
The main issue for adjudication is whether the Applicants were
employees to whom section 35 of the Act applied. This issue does not
involve any complex question of law and is capable of speedy
determination.
6.
Although the amounts claimed by the Applicants are not
insubstantial, I am of the view that this alone is not a ground
which disqualifies the matter from being referred to arbitration.
Looking at the nature of the case, I am satisfied that the
Respondent will not be unduly disadvantaged by the less formal
procedures of arbitration or the comparatively lower standard of
judicial process and reasoning available at arbitration under the
auspices of CMAC.
7.
In the premises, I direct that the main application be and is hereby
referred to arbitration under the auspices of CMAC. I direct further
that the Applicant shall forward a copy of this ruling, together
with copies of the pleadings filed of record, to CMAC within 14
days.
PETER
R. DUNSEITH
PRESIDENT
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT