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 17
|
|
Norman v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR224/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 17 (19 March 2003)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR224/02
2003.03.19
In
the matter between
LENTSHA
NORMAN Applicant
and
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
1
st
Respondent
ADV. W J
HUTCHINSON
2
nd
Respondent
MARTIN’S FUNERAL
UNDERTAKERS
3
rd
Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
EX
TEMPORE
REVELAS,
J
:
1.
The applicant referred a dispute about an alleged unfair dismissal to
the Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
(“the
CCMA”). His application was brought two months out of the time
period prescribed by the Labour Relations Act.
He then had to bring
an application for condonation. Condonation was refused, and the
commissioner who refused to grant condonation
based his refusal on
the excellent prospects of success of the respondent who had filed an
affidavit with the CCMA in support
of its opposition for the
condonation application brought by the applicant.
2.
The applicant explained that his referral was out of time due to a
delay on the part of his union. That is apparent from the
ruling of
the arbitrator. The applicant alleged that the delay occurred because
there were several telephone calls made to and
by his union, which
did not contribute to resolve the matter. His version in this regard
did not persuade me. What is more, it
did not persuade the
commissioner, who exercised his discretion , as he did not condone
the late referral, and that is a discretion
with which this court
will not lightly interfere.
3.
The commissioner, as I have already mentioned, had before him an
affidavit by the respondent deposed to by Mr Collins. In this
affidavit it is alleged that the applicant had resigned by way of a
letter, the contents of which were clear, and a meeting was
held.
Attached to the affidavit is a copy of the letter allegedly written
on the instructions of the applicant where, in the last
paragraph, he
indicates that he is working "under notice", which tends to
support the respondent's version placed before
the commissioner.
4.
There is also a handwritten note on the letter, signed by Mr Collins.
This signature is similar to that on the affidavit and
appears to be
the same signature on the note of 28 March 2001, where he wrote the
following on the applicant's letter:
"
Resignation is
accepted as from 28/3/01. You will be expected to work 2 weeks'
notice as per Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
"
5.
The applicant has done little to refute the contents of the letter,
and it is common cause that he indeed wrote a letter in which
he
alleged that he warned his employer (respondent) that he would report
the respondent to the CCMA for certain conduct. That is
correct, that
is borne out by the letter in which he does warn his employer about
referring the matter to the CCMA.
6.
In all the circumstances I am unable to interfere with the decision
of the commissioner. He took into account the degree of lateness,
(it
was substantial) the explanation for the delay, (which was
improbable). It is trite that a party may not be excused for delays
due to the laxity of his or her representative. The prospects of
success are not good, as found by the arbitrator, in that it appears
that the applicant resigned and later regretted his decision.
7.
In the circumstances the application to review the ruling of the
commissioner is dismissed.
________________
E.
Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK