Summary of the Document
This document is a jurisdictional ruling issued by the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council under case number GPBC1816/2021.
The matter was heard on papers and delivered on 26 May 2026.
Parties:
Applicant: R Naidoo
Respondent: Department of International Relations and Corporation
Panelist: Adv. IP Kgatla
Applicant’s representative: Ms Jadene Oelschig from SVN Attorneys
Respondent’s representative: Adv. Floretter Storm, on brief from the State Attorney, Pretoria
Background
The matter was referred to the GPSSBC for arbitration in terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
The arbitration was set down for 4 March 2026 and was held via a virtual platform. During the proceedings, the Respondent raised points in limine relating to the Applicant’s claims for severance pay and one month’s notice pay.
The parties did not lead oral evidence for this interlocutory issue. Instead, they filed written submissions and annexures.
Points Raised by the Respondent
The Respondent argued that the GPSSBC lacked jurisdiction to determine the payment claims.
The Respondent’s argument included that:
The claim for one month’s notice pay raised a new dispute in terms of section 73A of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
The Applicant earned above the prescribed earnings threshold, and the claim for severance pay should therefore be dealt with by the Labour Court.
The BCEA payment claims were not properly referred to the GPSSBC.
The claims for severance pay and notice pay were not included in the original referral form and had prescribed.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant earned R80 618.16 per month at the time her employment was terminated, which was above the prescribed earnings threshold of R261 748.45 per annum.
The Respondent also argued that the alleged debt became due on the date of termination, being 30 September 2021, and that the debt had prescribed on 1 October 2024.
Applicant’s Position
The Applicant argued that the severance pay and notice pay claims were linked to the unfair dismissal dispute already before the GPSSBC.
The Applicant submitted that the true nature of the termination still had to be determined. According to the Applicant, the Commissioner first needed to determine whether the termination constituted a retrenchment or dismissal for operational requirements.
The Applicant further argued that the payment claims were sufficiently connected to the dismissal dispute and should not be excluded on a technical basis.
Alternatively, the Applicant submitted that even if the GPSSBC found that section 73A limited its power to determine the payment claims, this should not affect the GPSSBC’s jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal dispute.
Findings
The Commissioner found that the Respondent’s point in limine was mainly based on the remedies sought by the Applicant.
The Commissioner stated that, in labour disputes, the appropriate remedy only becomes relevant after there has been a determination of wrongdoing by the employer.
The Commissioner further held that the first task is to determine the true nature of the dispute. Only after that can the Commissioner consider whether there was wrongdoing and what remedy may be appropriate.
The ruling referred to the principle that a Commissioner must determine the real dispute between the parties by considering the facts and evidence, and is not bound only by the labels attached to the dispute by the parties or their representatives.
The Commissioner found that the issue raised by the Respondent was not yet ripe for determination because the nature of the dispute connected to the remedy had not yet been established through evidence.
Ruling
The Respondent’s point in limine was dismissed.
The GPSSBC found that it had the required jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter.
The GPSSBC was requested to set the matter down for arbitration as soon as reasonably practicable.
No order as to costs was made.
Key Takeaway
This ruling highlights that jurisdictional objections must be considered in the context of the real dispute between the parties.
Where the nature of the dispute has not yet been determined through evidence, a point in limine based mainly on the remedies sought may be premature.
The ruling also confirms that Commissioners must look beyond the labels used by the parties and consider the substance of the dispute before deciding what remedies may be appropriate.