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 2
|
|
Thonise v Post Office Krugersdorp (JR1145/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 2 (13 November 2001)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR1145/01
DATE:
2001-11-13
In
the matter between
E
THOBISE Applicant
and
POST
OFFICE
KRUGERSDORP Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
REVELAS,
J
:
1.
This is an application, brought ostensibly in terms of section 145 of
the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 ("the Act"),
in terms
of which the applicant seeks to set aside a ruling made by the second
respondent, refusing condonation of the applicant's
late referral of
his dispute.
2.
I will treat the matter as if the application was brought in terms of
section 158(1)(g) of the Act, which would be the applicable
section
to such applications.
3.
The applicant has referred his dispute to the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the @CCMA@) 154 days out
of
time.
4.
The reason proffered by the applicant for the lateness, is that after
his disciplinary hearing he fell ill and could not contact
the union
officer to refer the matter to the CCMA. When he recuperated he
contacted a shop steward for assistance.
The
applicant had a representative at the hearing, Mr C P Mofakeng, and
Mr L Mogolosi a shop steward of the Communication Workers'
Union
(CWU), who knew of the statutory time limit.
5.
The commissioner found that since the applicant was not in a coma,
the fact that he was very sick did not justify the delay.
The
applicant did also not tell the commissioner what was wrong with him,
or provide him with proof of his illness.
6.
The applicant was charged with the unauthorised possession of certain
postage items. There was evidence, presented in the form
of video
camera footage, that the applicant had placed 24 letters in his
trousers on 7 July 2001 at 10h07.
7.
The applicant argued that he had good prospects of success. He stated
there was no sufficient proof to warrant his dismissal,
and the
respondent never followed the correct procedure on appeal.
8.
The applicant was suspended with full pay on 7 July 2000 pending a
disciplinary hearing.
9.
According to the union, and this was not apparently put before the
commissioner, these letters were found in the ceiling thereafter.
10.
The commissioner found that the applicant had not made out a case for
condonation because the degree of lateness is excessive,
the reason
given was not acceptable, and the applicant had no prospects of
success. There are no grounds in the applicant's review
application
to persuade me to set the ruling aside.
11.
Commissioners of the CCMA have a discretion with regard to the
granting of condonation when disputes which are referred late.
Provided they have exercised this discretion reasonably and
judiciously, and dealt with the application fairly on the facts
presented
before them, the Labour Court would be extremely loathe to
interfere with the exercise of their discretion. In this case there
are no grounds upon which I could find that the commissioner's ruling
should be set aside and that the late referral of the applicant
must
be condoned
12.
This judgment was given in the absence of the applicant's
representative of the CWU, Earlier on, after the matter had been
argued, I informed the applicant's representative that I will give
judgment at the end of the roll. It is now 16h20, and the court
has
reached the end of its roll, and the representative was absent.
13.
The application is dismissed.
_________________
E.
Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK