About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZALCJHB 103
|
|
Utility Economics CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2531/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 103 (21 May 2013)
JR2531/10/ev
1
JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: JR2531/10
DATE
: 2013-05-21
In the matter between
UTILITY ECONOMICS CC
.................................................................................
Applicant
and
CCMA
......................................................................................................
First
respondent
COMMISSIONER
THULANI AKIM
.....................................................
Second
repondent
ELWEN,
SYLVIA
...................................................................................
Third
respondent
_____________________________________________________________
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________
STEENKAMP, J
:
This is a twofold application: firstly, to dismiss an application for
review instituted by the employer, Utility Economics CC,
in October
2010; and secondly, to make an arbitration award of 8 September 2010
by the second respondent (the commissioner) under
the auspices of the
first respondent (the CCMA) an order of court.
The arbitration award was handed down on 8 September 2010. The
employer (the applicant in the review application), represented
by
Maharaj attorneys, delivered a review application on 4 October 2010.
The employer delivered the record on 28 February 2011. It filed its
notice in terms of Rule 7A(8) more than two years ago, on 10
March
2011. The employee, within the requisite time period, on 24 March
2011, delivered her answering affidavit. For the ensuing
two years
the employer party has done nothing to pursue the arbitration award.
The delay is clearly excessive. The employer has
offered no
explanation for that delay which has led to clear prejudice to the
employee who has been reinstated in terms of the
arbitration award.
The employee has fulfilled all of her obligations to pursue the
review application. The employer has not done so. In those
circumstances
there is no doubt in my mind that the review
application should be dismissed and that the arbitration award should
be made an order
of court.
With regard to costs, even though the employer has not opposed this
application, it should not have been necessary for the employee
over
a period of two years to incur further legal costs after she pursued
her remedies in the CCMA -- which are supposed to be
expeditious and
cheap -- because the employer has not fulfilled its obligations. I
therefore grant an order in the following terms:
The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
The award of the second respondent under case number GAJB 11690-10
is made an order of court.
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
____________________________
STEENKAMP J
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT: Angelo Pantazis
Instructed by Brian Bleazard attorneys.