Chimphondah v Housing Investment Partners (Pty) Ltd and Others

Mr Andrew Pandeka Chimphondah was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of Housing Investment Partners (Pty) Ltd (HiP) from 15 October 2014 until his resignation on 19 July 2018. Following his resignation, he referred disputes to the CCMA alleging constructive dismissal and claiming unpaid short-term incentives (STI) for 2016 and 2017, as well as deferred short-term incentives (DSTI) equivalent to three months’ salary in respect of 2015. The incentive scheme was governed by clause 6.1.2 of his employment contract and an internal incentive policy, which made payment conditional on performance targets and board approval. The CCMA commissioner found that Chimphondah failed to prove contractual entitlement to the incentives and that his resignation constituted a constructive dismissal. Chimphondah brought a review application to the Labour Court, challenging, inter alia, the CCMA’s jurisdiction to determine the contractual bonus claims under section 74(2) of the BCEA.

Condonation for the late filing of the review application was granted. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside to the extent that the CCMA assumed jurisdiction over the contractual performance incentive bonus claims, with the Court finding that the CCMA had no jurisdiction to determine those claims under section 74(2) of the BCEA.

The case clarifies the limits of the CCMA’s jurisdiction under section 74(2) of the BCEA, particularly in relation to contractual claims for bonuses and incentive payments. It draws a clear distinction between remuneration as a basic condition of employment and discretionary performance-based benefits for senior employees. The judgment reinforces that high-earning employees’ contractual claims must ordinarily be pursued in the Labour Court under section 77(3) of the BCEA.