Settlement Agreements Ccma
The Labour Court gave the answer in Lekwa Local Municipality versus South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) and Others (2017). As things stand, the worker and the CCMA employer had entered into a settlement agreement under which the employer had agreed to pay the worker compensation in the amount of R1,674,149 to settle the worker`s right to constructive dismissal. The Tribunal found that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction in the matter, since there was a settlement agreement between the parties and the workers were also bound by the terms of the agreement, so that this matter should have been settled in accordance with the dispute settlement clause of the agreement, with the dispute referred to the competent negotiating forum. in any event, staff were late in forwarding their dispute and no request for approval was sought. As such, SARS confirmed that CCMA and Labour Court judgments (which contain transaction premiums) are either taxed according to the general definition of “gross income” in section 1 of the Act, or that they may be specifically included in paragraph (d), paragraph (f) or, where applicable, in paragraph (c) of that definition. However, in Schroeder and another case against Pharmacare Ltd t/a Aspen Pharmacare, the Labour Court found that a CCMA representative had wrongly concluded that the existence of the settlement agreement prevented it from resolving the alleged wrongful dismissal dispute. Disputes are also often resolved through a financial agreement. Section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended) (“the LRA”) provides that the parties may settle any labour dispute by agreement. The South African tax effects of CCMA powers, labour court decisions or comparisons related to unfair dismissals and unfair labour practices have been examined by our courts. In their judgments, both the Labour Court and the LAC referred to earlier case law according to which threshold agreements between employers and majority trade unions did not prevent small trade unions from obtaining organisational rights.
The Schröder decision argues that the CCMA has the power to determine the validity of a settlement agreement in the context of an investigation into the existence of termination. However, we believe that the decision does not close the door on the fact that the conclusion of a settlement agreement crowds out the jurisdiction of the CCMA to rule on the alleged wrongful dismissal dispute. Schröder and his colleague referred the case back to the Labour Court and requested the annulment of the settlement agreements. Where the arbitral award, injunction or comparison relates to an unfair labour practice, SARS examines the facts of the specific case and the nature of the amounts awarded in order to determine whether paragraph (f) or (d) of the definition of “gross income” should be applied to the amount. Where the amount of the arbitration, injunction or settlement relates to an unjustified termination, the amount is within the scope of paragraph (d) of “gross income”. An employer established in South Africa is legally required to withhold payments that constitute remuneration and must therefore withhold PAYE from a CCMA arbitration award, an injunction of the Labour Court or a settlement amount received by a worker in respect of an unfair labour practice or unfair dismissal. Within the meaning of Article 142A, the CCMA may, by mutual agreement between the parties or at the request of a party, make the settlement agreement an arbitral award, and that award may then be enforced within the meaning of Article 143. For the purposes of Article 158(1)(c) , the Labour Court may, at the request of a party, make the conciliation agreement an order of the Labour Court which may then be enforced like any other order of the Labour Court. . . .