Driefontein Consolidated (Pty) Ltd v CCMA (JR138/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 12 (16 October 2001)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review of CCMA Ruling — Application to review and set aside a CCMA ruling regarding an award made in favour of an employee — Gold mine contended that it did not receive notice of the set down for the rescission application — Commissioner concluded that service was proper despite non-receipt — Finding of gross irregularity due to failure to comply with audi alteram partem principles — Ruling and award reviewed and set aside, matter referred back to CCMA for arbitration de novo.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2001
>>
[2001] ZALCJHB 12
|

|

Driefontein Consolidated (Pty) Ltd v CCMA (JR138/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 12 (16 October 2001)

[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO:  JR138/01
2001.10.16
In
the matter between
DRIEFONTEIN
CONSOLIDATED (PTY)
LIMITED                                                     Applicant
and
CCMA                                                                                                                     Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
LANDMAN,
J
:
This
is an application to review and set aside a ruling of a commissioner
of the CCMA in the matter of East Driefontein Gold Mine
v NUM on
behalf of Mr Moleke.  An award was made by a commissioner of the
CCMA.  Subsequently an application to rescind
the award was made
by the gold mine. The commissioner presiding over the application to
rescind the award appears to have accepted
that the notice of set
down did not arrive and did not come to the attention of the gold
mine. Nevertheless he concluded that as
there had been service in the
sense that the document had been sent to the gold mine, this
constituted proper service.
That,
of course, is a gross irregularity because the purpose of service is
that it should come to the attention of the party to
whom it is
addressed. Where this has not occurred, and the facts point to this,
then clearly the rules relating to
audi
alteram partem
have not been complied
with.  The proper order is to rescind the award.  This was
not done.  In the circumstances
the ruling and award is reviewed
and set aside, and the matter is referred back to the CCMA for
arbitration
de novo
before a commissioner other than the second respondent.
__________________
A
A Landman
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
---ooo0ooo---
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK