About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZALCJHB 266
|
|
Mofokeng v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1016/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 266 (19 July 2011)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD
AT JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: JR 1016/10
NOT REPORTABLE
In the
matter between:
XOLANE
ELLIOT
MOFOKENG
Applicant
And
METAL AND ENGINEERING
INDUSTRIES
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
First
Respondent
COMMISSIONER
DAISY
MANZANA
Second
Respondent
HAWKER
SIDDLEY
TRANSFORMERS
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MASHER
AJ:
This
is a review application in terms of S158 (1) (g) of the Labour
Relations Act to review and set aside the condonation ruling
of
Commissioner D. Manzana the Second Respondent dated 10 March 2010.
The
applicant was dismissed by the third respondent on 24 August 2010.
The applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the
Metal and
Engineering Industries Bargaining Council on 5 February 2010.
The
applicant applied for condonation for the late referral.
In
considering the application for condonation, the second respondent
considered all the factors she is required to have considered
viz
degree of lateness, the reasons for the lateness, prospects of
success and prejudice to the parties.
It
is also clear from the papers that the second respondent applied her
mind to all the facts placed before her by the applicant
in support
of his condonation application.
The
applicant has not set out any grounds of review in his papers. The
case made out in the papers by the applicant is more akin
to an
appeal. The applicant having set out the facts leading up to his
dismissal and the criminal trial that followed which concluded
with
his acquittal.
With
the applicant being a lay person and unrepresented, it is
understandable that his papers do not set out any grounds for
review.
What
is clear from the applicant’s papers is that he does not take
issue with the manner in which the second respondent
conducted the
proceedings. The applicant’s case is simply that he did not
know that he was required to refer his dispute
to the Bargaining
Council within 30 days of his dismissal, and that he was waiting to
complete the criminal matter before he
dealt with his unfair
dismissal.
I
cannot find any reason to interfere with the condonation ruling of
the second respondent. I can find no basis for any of the
grounds of
review recognised in terms of the Labour Relations Act to apply in
this matter. In addition, it is my view that the
decision of the
second respondent to dismiss the condonation application is not a
decision that a reasonable decision maker could
not come to.
In
the circumstances I make the following order:
(a)
The review application is dismissed.
(b)
No order as to costs.
___________________
D. MASHER
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court
19 July 2011