In the case of Footwear Trading cc vs Mdladlose (CLL Vol. 15 No. 1 August 2005) a very different decision was made. When Mdladlose was dismissed she sued her employer, Fila (Pty) Ltd at CCMA. The arbitrator found the dismissal to be unfair and ordered reinstatement with full back pay. When the employer failed to comply with the award the employee went to Labour Court citing both Fila and its associate company, Footwear Trading. She asked the Court to order compliance with the CCMA award and to find Footwear Trading jointly liable because, while Fila had dismissed her, Footwear had:
• been the one to institute disciplinary proceedings against her;
• faxed a pre-arbitration document to her union;
• applied for a subpoena in her case;
• the same owners as Fila;
• the same address as Fila; and
• included its name on her payslip.
Footwear Trading denied any significant link with Fila claiming that it merely did administrative work for Fila. However, the Court found the two companies to be jointly liable and ordered Footwear to comply with the CCMA award. This was because the two entities had operated so as to give the impression that they were one business.
Footwear appealed to the Labour Appeal Court which found that:
• A cc is a legal entity separate from its owners;
• Under certain circumstances a court is justified in ignoring the above mentioned separateness. This is known as ‘lifting the corporate veil’;
• Persons who have control of the undertaking in which the worker is employed should be the employer in circumstances where one entity is an empty shell and another entity has the power to make decisions and to pay wages;
• There were, in any case, several undeniable documents showing Footwear to be the joint employer of Mdladlose;
• The way the two companies were run gave a clear impression that they were joint employers; and
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
We have here two cases where the companies concerned were fighting joint liability. In both cases the two cited companies had the same address and the same owner. Despite this, the findings on joint liability were different in each case. This is not surprising because:
• It was not shown, in the Commercial Hygiene case, that it had been operating as part of Soap and All or that one company had control over the other;
• The name of Commercial Hygiene was not on the employee’s payslip; and
• There were not several, undeniable, documents proving co-employership.
These two opposite case decisions fell largely on the degree to which the two entities could be seen to be co-employers. This difference is somewhat subtle, and lay people cannot be expected to make the distinction. Employers are therefore advised that, before grappling with the thorny issue of joint and several liability in labour law, they should consult an expert versed in this area.
Ivan Israelstam is the Chief Executive of Labour Law Management Consulting.