About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2002
>>
[2002] ZALCJHB 24
|
|
Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 24 (22 January 2002)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/ssl
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(
HELD
AT BRAAMFONTEIN
)
CASE
NO: JR381/01
2002-01-22
In
the matter between
RUSTENBURG
PLATINUM MINES
Applicant
and
NOSILELA
& OTHERS
Respondents
J
U D G M E N T
LANDMAN J:
1.
This is an application in terms of
s 158(1)(g)
of the
Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995
to review and set aside the rulings of a
Commissioner of the CCMA, the 23rd respondent, in this matter.
2.
The rulings are contained in the papers. They relate to the fact that
the Commissioner decided that the first respondent, one
Mr Nosilela,
was entitled to refer a dispute on his behalf and on behalf of 21
fellow-employees. It is clear form LRA 7/11
that Mr Nosilela
referred the dispute to the CCMA. He purported to do so on behalf of
2nd and 22nd respondents whose names appear
on an annexure to that
referral.
3.
There is nothing in the papers that indicated they had authorised Mr
Nosilela to refer the matter on their behalf. They
could have
done this. They individually signed a list which was attached
to the referral of the dispute for arbitration,
thereby indicating
that they associate themselves with the referral to arbitration.
4.
Section 191(1)
of the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
states that:
"If there is a
dispute about the fairness of a dismissal, the dismissed employees
may refer the dispute in writing within 30
days from date of
dismissal to -
(a)
a council. If the parties to the dispute fall within the registered
scope of that council, and
(b)
the Commission, if no council has jurisdiction."
5.
It is trite law that a trade union may refer a dispute to the CCMA
for and on behalf of its members. This court has held
on a
number of occasions, see
Sigwale & Others v Libanon (a
Division of Kloof Gold Mine Ltd)
[2000] BLLR 215
(LC) 223F-J
that it is not competent for an individual employee to refer a
dispute on behalf of fellow-employees.
6.
It would of course be competent for a fellow-employee who has a power
of attorney or is in some other way mandated or authorised
to
further dispute, to do so. In this particular case there is no
indication that this was done. It is on this basis that
I come to the
conclusion that the Commissioner made a finding of which is wrong in
law. This being so the ruling is reviewable.
7.
The decision is therefore reviewed and set aside in the following
terms:
1. The 23rd
respondent's finding that the 2nd to 22nd respondents properly
referred the dispute to the CCMA as contemplated
in
section 191
of
the
Labour Relations Act is
reviewed and set aside. However,
the referral in respect of the first respondent is unaffected by this
judgment.
2. The 23rd
respondent's finding that 2nd to 22nd respondents could be joined as
co-respondents in the dispute referred
to the CCMA by the first
respondent is reviewed and set aside.
3.
There is no order for costs.
Signed
and dated at BRAAMFONTEIN this 26
th
day of February 2002.
______________
AA
Landman
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK