- The Labour Court found that a CCMA settlement agreement between AMCU, 32 workers, and Motorvia resolved not only a suspension dispute but also the workers’ unfair dismissal claim.
- Judge Lagrange held that a clause stating the agreement was in full and final settlement of all claims arising from employment or termination meant the workers could not pursue their dismissal case.
- The judgment highlights that broadly worded settlement clauses can shut down future labour claims, even when the agreement seems to address a different dispute.
At the centre of the dispute between the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and 32 workers on one side, and Motorvia (1993) Pty Ltd in Uitenhage on the other, was a single sentence in a settlement agreement signed at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
The wording of that sentence ultimately determined whether the Labour Court could hear the workers’ unfair dismissal case.
The agreement settled a dispute over the workers’ suspension without pay. But crucially, it also included a clause stating the settlement was “in full and final settlement of any claims that the Applicant may have against the Respondent arising out of their services with the Respondent or the termination thereof.” The scope of that sentence proved decisive when the workers later tried to pursue an unfair dismissal claim.
Motorvia, which operates in the automotive logistics and vehicle transport industry, argued that the workers had already settled their dismissal claim when they signed the CCMA agreement. The company raised a special plea, asking the Labour Court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the dispute had already been resolved by the settlement agreement.
How the dispute began
The conflict stretches back to March 2020, during the early days of South Africa’s COVID-19 lockdown. Motorvia accused the employees of participating in an unprotected strike shortly before strict national regulations were imposed.
When operations resumed at the end of May 2020, the workers said they were prevented from returning to work. They initially referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, arguing that being barred from the workplace amounted to termination of employment.
During conciliation, Motorvia insisted the workers had not been dismissed. The employees then withdrew their dismissal claim and instead referred an unfair labour practice dispute, alleging they had been suspended without pay during the ongoing conflict.
Then, in October 2020, Motorvia formally dismissed the workers after disciplinary proceedings related to the alleged strike. The employees responded by referring a new unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
The CCMA later ruled it had no jurisdiction to arbitrate the dismissal dispute, as it arose from participation in an unprotected strike. This meant the matter was referred to the Labour Court in Gqeberha.
A settlement is reached at the CCMA
Before the dismissal dispute could reach the Labour Court, the suspension dispute came back to the CCMA for arbitration in March 2021. Instead of proceeding, the parties entered settlement negotiations.
The agreement that followed required Motorvia to pay certain amounts to the workers and stated that the suspension dispute would be withdrawn. On its face, the settlement appeared to resolve the immediate conflict that brought the parties back to the CCMA.
However, the agreement also included a broader clause stating that the settlement resolved any claims arising from employment or the termination of employment. Motorvia would later rely on this wording to argue that the workers had already settled their unfair dismissal claim.
Different accounts of the settlement
The Labour Court heard from two witnesses who were present during the settlement negotiations—each offering a very different account of what was agreed.
T Andrews, representing Motorvia via the employer organisation NEASA, testified that he went to the CCMA with instructions to settle every dispute between the parties. He said the wording of the clause was deliberately included to ensure the agreement would resolve all claims arising from employment.
R Nguntze, an AMCU regional organiser who represented the workers, gave a different version. He testified that the negotiations only addressed the suspension dispute and the wages the workers believed they were owed for that period.
Nguntze admitted he did not read the settlement agreement before signing. He assumed the document simply captured what had been discussed, since the case number referred only to the suspension dispute.
He maintained that the union never intended to settle the unfair dismissal claim, insisting that the termination of employment was never discussed.
Why the court focused on the wording
Judge R Lagrange said the key question was how the settlement agreement should be interpreted. The court relied on the Constitutional Court case of Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality, which lays out the modern approach to interpreting legal documents.
Quoting from that case, Judge Lagrange explained that “interpretation is the process of attributing meaning to the words used in a document … The inevitable point of departure is the language of the provision itself.”
The judge acknowledged that several contextual factors suggested the parties were mainly focused on the suspension dispute. The CCMA arbitration had been scheduled for that issue, and the agreement’s case number referred specifically to it.
But despite this context, Judge Lagrange said the wording of the settlement clause could not be ignored. Courts must always try to give effect to every clause in a legal document.
Quoting previous legal authority, Judge Lagrange stated that “a Court should be slow to come to the conclusion that the words are tautologous or superfluous.” In other words, courts should assume that every word in an agreement was included for a reason, and should give effect to it wherever possible.
The real problem for the union
Judge Lagrange found that the union’s argument would require the court to treat the settlement clause as if it had no meaning. That could not be accepted, since the wording clearly extended to claims arising from the workers’ employment or its termination.
The judge therefore concluded that the settlement agreement covered the unfair dismissal dispute too. As the court put it: “as the settlement agreement stands, the special plea must succeed.”
This meant the settlement agreement had already resolved the dismissal dispute. Since the claim was settled, the Labour Court could not hear it.
The court’s decision
The Labour Court upheld Motorvia’s special plea and found that the dismissal dispute had already been settled by the CCMA agreement. As a result, it held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the workers’ unfair dismissal claim.
Judge Lagrange, therefore, dismissed the case. The court made no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
