About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZALCJHB 30
|
|
Lesiba v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry (NBCFRI) and Others (JR1190/2008) [2010] ZALCJHB 30 (21 December 2010)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO JR 1190/2008
In
the matter between:
PALE
ERIC LESIBA
Applicant
and
NATIONAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL
FOR
THE ROAD FREIGHT INDUSTRY (NBCRFI)
First
Respondent
COMMISSIONER
D.M. AFRICA N.O.
Second
Respondent
STAFF
INITIATIVE (PTY) LTD
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
COETZEE
AJ:
Introduction
1.
The Applicant seeks to review and set aside
a ruling dismissing his application to rescind a dismissal of his
case before the Bargaining
Council for failure to attend the
Conciliation proceedings.
Background
2.
The Applicant failed to attend the
conciliation.
3.
The Commissioner dismissed the matter.
4.
The Applicant filed an application to
rescind the dismissal ruling.
Analysis
of the facts
5.
Applicant in a short affidavit explained
that he did not attend the conciliation meeting as he was not
notified of the date.
6.
He also contended that his Legal Advisor
was not informed of the conciliation meeting.
7.
The Employer on an affidavit submitted
proof that the matter was properly set down and that the notice of
set down had been faxed
to Applicant’s Legal Advisors.
8.
The Employer, in addition, submitted
(hearsay evidence) that the Case Management Officer at the Bargaining
Council had received
a telephone call from the Applicant’s
Legal Advisors informing her that the Applicant was critically ill in
hospital, and
explanation different from the one tendered in the
affidavit.
9.
The Applicant did not deal with the
prospects of success in his Application while the Employer contended
that a fair disciplinary
hearing resulted in the dismissal of
Applicant.
Analysis
10.
Applicant’s founding affidavit in the
Review Application does not specify a specific ground for the review
of the ruling.
11.
Applicant however in his supplementary
founding affidavit seeks to set out further grounds of review.
Again, no specific recognised
ground of review is formulated.
12.
The Second Respondent clearly considered
the representations and evidence before him.
13.
Second Respondent held:
13.1.
That proof was submitted that the
notification had been sent to Applicant’s Legal Advisor and
that Applicant had tendered
two conflicting explanations for not
attending the conciliation meeting.
13.2.
That Applicant had not been truthful about
the reason for not attending the Conciliation meeting.
14.
Second Respondent’s ruling is not one
that a reasonable Commissioner could not have made.
Order
15.
The application is dismissed.
16.
There is no order as to costs.
____________________________
COETZEE
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
DATE
OF HEARING:
21
DECEMBER 2010
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
21 December 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR
APPLICANT:
In Person
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS:
No appearance