About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2003
>>
[2003] ZALCJHB 7
|
|
Makhanya v Meadowlands Post Office (JR1153/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 7 (4 February 2003)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/HVDM
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR1153/02
DATE:
2003-02-04
In
the matter between
MAKHANYA Applicant
and
MEADOWLANDS
POST OFFICE
Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
REVELAS
J
:
1.
In this matter the applicant, Mr Makhanya, was dismissed by the
respondent, (the Meadowlands Post Office), for allegedly stealing
R300 from an envelope. Copies of the disciplinary inquiry were
placed before me. This was evidently also placed before
the
arbitrator or commissioner who refused to grant the applicant
condonation for his late referral of the matter.
2.
The dismissal took place in August 2000. In the affidavit made
to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
deposed
to by a union official, it is stated that the dispute arose on
9 April 2001. Clearly there is a great discrepancy
of
almost a year. The dispute was then referred to the CCMA on
15 April 2002. According the commissioner it is
therefore
between 11 and 19 months late, depending on whose version is
accepted.
3.
The applicant alleged that he relied on his union organiser who
assisted him in the disciplinary inquiry to refer the dispute
about
his alleged unfair dismissal. The union official did not deal
with his matter dilligently and then in December 2000
he approached
an alternative specialist for assistance.
4.
The commissioner refused to condone the late referral on the basis
that he did not believe that the applicant's prospect of success
were
good. I am unable to criticise his finding in view of the fact
that he had the evidence of the disciplinary inquiry
before him and
he was addressed on several of the issues. He regarded the delay as
excessive, which it was, and the explanation
for the delay, he found
to have had no merit at all. It also appears that the
commissioner was aware that conflicting facts
were placed before
him. He stated that:
"
The dates stated
by the applicant are confusing and do not assist the consideration of
the application.
"
5.
Commissioners who decide condonation applications are enjoined with a
discretion whether or not to grant condonation of a late
referral,
and as long as the discretion is exercised judicially and reasonably
there exists no reason to interfere in such rulings.
6.
In this particular instance, the applicant has not demonstrated that
the commissioner did not apply his mind to the facts before
him, or
that there was any reason to interfere with the exercise of his
discretion. It must also be remembered that in terms
of the
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
, as amended, commissioners of the
CCMA are enjoined to promote the expeditious conclusion of labour
disputes. Matters that
are referred to it 11 months after the
dismissal heard and should not be such late referrals should not be
condoned unless very
special circumstances exist. There are clearly
no such circumstances in this matter.
7.
Accordingly the application to review the commissioner's award is
dismissed.
________________
E. Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK