DRG Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd retrenched three employees in January 2023. The employees referred an unfair dismissal dispute, which found its way to the Labour Court. In the Labour Court, DRG argued the court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Following Fasken’s previous publications on this topic,[1]in this bulletin, we consider the court’s decision in this case.
Facts
DRG provides HR, payroll and compliance services. DRG recruited the applicants and, in terms of their employment contracts, assigned them to DRG’s client 54Gene Inc (54Gene) in either Washington, D.C. or Lagos, Nigeria. 54Gene is a biotechnology company which engages in genetic research. Interestingly, DRG refers to itself as the “employer of record” tasked with ensuring compliance with South African employment law.
DRG facilitated the retrenchment process that led to the applicants’ dismissals. The employees referred an unfair dismissal to the CCMA, which was not resolved at conciliation. They then referred the dispute to the Labour Court for the contemplated adjudication of the dismissal dispute.
In the Labour Court
DRG raised two special pleas in the Labour Court. First, it argued that the Labour Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Secondly, DRG argued that the applicants failed to join 54Gene to the...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Support us by becoming a premium member or sharin...