The employer did not meet the benefit under the transaction agreement and, as a result, the worker asked the CCMA for the agreement to be rendered under section 142A of the Act. For reasons that were not considered, the application was heard on an uncontested basis and the settlement agreement was duly concluded by an arbitration decision. An attempt by the employer to withdraw the bonus failed, and the employer went to the labour tribunal to have the award verified and set aside. Where the amount of unfair dismissal falls within paragraphs f or c) of the definition of gross income, the employer is required to refuse the award, injunction or tally of an amount set in the PAYS deduction tables prescribed by SARS. Within the CCMA, transaction agreements are usually concluded during the conciliation phase of the proceedings. As a general rule, an employer party agrees to pay a portion of the work an amount to settle the dispute. The labour tribunal reviewed and annulled the transaction agreement and the jurisdictional decision. He then appealed the labour tribunal`s judgment to the LAC, the full judgment of which can be read here. The lesson is that when entering into transaction agreements, it is important to understand the limitations imposed by law on the amount of compensation that can be awarded for various disputes. Second, a party would only oppose its own settlement agreement in exceptional cases and would like to leave it out. If an employer does not comply with the settlement agreement, the worker may apply under Section 142 A of the Act to make the settlement agreement an arbitration award.
If this request is successful, the transaction agreement will effectively become a reward for a dispute resolution forum. In addition, the Labour Tribunal found that a transaction agreement is not an interim point that would override the jurisdiction of the CCMA. In other words, the CCMA is not prevented from considering a transaction agreement when deciding whether or not to be laid off. On the same day, amCU and M-R reached a settlement agreement under which AMCU would withdraw their dispute and present their audited members to MEIBC in order to become members in order to obtain organizing rights. The LAC agreed with the Labour Tribunal that the transaction contract was not valid, as M-R and AMCU made a “common mistake” upon entry. The reason for this was that both parties had adopted an erroneous legal status with respect to the nature and effect of the threshold agreements purportedly applicable to the AMCU`s application for organizing rights. The transaction agreement was therefore based on this erroneous adoption of the law; According to LA, if AMCU had known what the actual legal situation was, it would not have entered into the transaction agreement. In dismissing the appeal, the Labour Tribunal found that it was not competent to decide the dispute, since there is no provision in the LRA that gives the Court the jurisdiction to decide the validity of a settlement agreement.