About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 154
|
|
NUPSAW obo Sesoma and Others v Component Services (Pty) Ltd (JS719/10) [2018] ZALCJHB 154 (16 February 2018)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO
: JS719/10
DATE
:
2018-02-16
In
the matter between
NUPSAW
obo P SESOMA & 4
others
Applicant
and
COMPONENT
SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
EX
TEMPORE
STEENKAMP
J
: This is an application in
terms of rule 30 and rule 30A of the Uniform Rules of Court read with
rule 11 of the Rules of
the Labour Court.
The
matter was enrolled on an unopposed basis. No pleadings have been
filed on behalf of the applicant, NUPSAW (that is the trade
union
that purports to be acting on behalf of Patrick Sesoma and the other
four applicants). However, when the matter was called
today, one Mr
Monyeki stood up and claimed to be acting on behalf of the applicant.
It transpired from his submissions from the
bar that he had been
employed by NUPSAW as a union official, but resigned last year. He is
now affiliated to another union. He
has provided no proof of his
affiliation to that union or of that union’s registration or of
the alleged membership of Mr
Sesoma to that union, known as
UCIMESHWWU. Mr Monyeki, nevertheless, asked from the bar for the
matter to be postponed, despite
the fact that he has filed no
application for postponement. In support of that submission he says
that this application in terms
of rule 30 was only delivered to him
on the 8
th
of February 2018. That is more than a week ago. He could not explain
why he has filed no papers, nor has he properly applied for
a
postponement. The application for postponement is refused.
I
then deal with the merits of the application on an unopposed basis.
The matter has a long history and it appears from that history
that
Mr Sesoma and his colleagues have been badly served by a number of
trade unions. Initially a statement of a claim was filed,
purportedly
by MEWUSA on behalf of Patrick Sesoma and four others, against an
entity cited as Component Sources (Pty) Ltd. That
happened more than
seven years ago. Then, in August 2017, seven years after that
referral, another statement of case was filed
under the same case
number; this time purportedly by NUPSAW, against three respondents,
including Component Services (Pty) Ltd.
Although the initial referral
as well as the citation of the second referral refers to “NUPSAW
on behalf of Patrick Sesoma
and four others”, the new referral
states that “the applicant”, whoever that may be, is the
only person involved
in this matter. The other applicants are no
longer involved.
As
Mr
Crous
for the third respondent pointed out, that entity is incorrectly
cited as Component Services (Pty) Ltd, a company which does not
exist. He explained that he acts on behalf of an entity called
Component Sources CC; an entity that is not cited. The notice in
terms of rule 30 and rule 11 was served on the applicant, NUPSAW, on
the 5
th
of September 2017. Then Mr Monyeki sent an email back saying “we
will stand on our application”.
It
appears that Mr Monyeke left NUPSAW after that and Component Services
filed this application on 16 October 2017 and properly
served it on
the applicant, NUPSAW, by registered post at its chosen address.
However, that was returned and an attorney from Mr
Crous’s
office, Ms Alexandra Mihaleto, phoned Mr Elias Molefe, whose number
appears on an affidavit filed together with the
statement of case,
and informed him of the application. Molefe referred her to Monyeki
and on the 25
th
of January of this year the attorney, Ms Mihaleto, phoned the offices
of NUPSAW and was told that Monyeki had left NUPSAW last
year
already. The company’s attorneys, nevertheless, sent the
relevant documents to NUPSAW which was still cited as the applicant.
However, on the 1
st
of February NUPSAW advised it that it was not representing the
applicant.
It
is in those circumstances that the attorneys contacted Monyeki on the
7
th
of
February 2018 and informed him of today’s court date. Despite
that, Monyeki did nothing more to oppose the matter or,
as I have
noted, to present proof as to whom he was purporting to represent in
these proceedings.
On
the unopposed papers before me the applicant (i.e. the employer) has
made out a case for the relief it seeks. I am not persuaded
to order
costs, given that the employee has been badly served by his
representatives.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
An
order is granted in the following terms:
1.
The applicant’s statement of claim
dated 22 August 2017 is declared to be an irregular step or
proceeding in terms of rules
30 and 30A of the Uniform Rules of the
High Court, read with rule 11 of the Rules for Conduct of Proceedings
in the Labour Court.
2.
The irregular step is set aside and the
claim is dismissed.
3.
I do not make an order as to costs.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
___________________________
STEENKAMP
J
JUDGE OF
THE LABOUR COURT
DIGITAL
AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
No:
86 Cnr Juta & Melle Street, Arbour Square, 6th Floor
Braamfontein, JHB
TEL
/ FAX 011 339 4362 FAX: 086 726 6628
TRANSCRIBER’S
CERTIFICATE
This
is to certify that,
insofar as it is audible
, the aforegoing
is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings recorded by means
of a mechanical recorder in the matter of:
NUPSAW
OBO p sesoma
v
COMPONENT
SERVICES
CASE
NUMBER:
JS719/10
RECORDED
AT:
Labour Court
DATE
HELD:
2018-02-16
ORDER
TO TRANSCRIBE:
Ex tempore
judgment
TRANSCRIBER:
Ms M Brits
DATE
COMPLETED:
2018-03-19
NUMBER
OF CD/AUDIO FILES:
1
NUMBER
OF PAGES:
4
REPORT ON
RECORDING
1.
Names are transcribed phonetically.
DIGITAL
AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
No:
86 Cnr Juta & Melle Street, Arbour Square, 6th Floor
Braamfontein, JHB
TEL
/ FAX 011 339 4362 FAX: 086 726 6628