About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZALCCT 17
|
|
Williams v CCMA and Others (C 267/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 17 (7 March 2025)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD IN CAPE TOWN)
Case No: C 267/2024
Not Reportable
In
the matter between:
DOMINIC
IVOR WILLIAMS
Applicant
and
CCMA
First Respondent
COMMISSIONER
S CHRISTIANSEN
Second Respondent
ACEPAK
AUTOMATION (PTY) LTD
Third
Respondent
Heard:
4 March 2025
Judgment
delivered: 7 March 2025
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER J
[1]
The
applicant wishes to review the commissioner’s ruling
[1]
which dismissed his application for condonation for the late referral
of his dispute to the CCMA.
[2]
When considering applications for condonation,
commissioners enjoy a wide discretion. Accordingly, a reviewing court
should be cautious
when interfering with such rulings. The test for a
review is whether it can be said that the discretion was not
exercised judicially:
it was exercised ‘capriciously, or upon a
wrong principle, or in a biased manner, or for insubstantial reasons
with no regard
to the principles applicable to condonation
applications.
[3]
In
this case, it is evident from the award that the commissioner was
alive to the correct enquiry in condonation applications. The
commissioner correctly summarised the factors for consideration as
set out by the Constitutional Court in
Grootboom
v NPA and anothe
r
[2]
and considered each factor with reference to the evidentiary material
and submissions that was before him, namely the applicant’s
condonation application and the opposing affidavit.
[4]
In this regard, the commissioner found that the
degree of lateness was considerable. No fault can be found with this
finding. 173
days out of time is objectively excessive given the
30-day statutory time-period and that the LRA is designed to afford
both
parties a right to expeditious resolution of labour disputes.
[5]
The commissioner also found wanting the
applicant’s explanation for the delay. On the evidence before
the commissioner, it
cannot be said that this finding is one to which
no reasonable commissioner could come. On the evidence, the applicant
had been
aware of the existence of the CCMA, he had sought legal
advice in September 2023 which was still within the 30-day period and
his
averments regarding his attorneys and his claim that he was
bedridden from December and thereafter required rehabilitation are
significant by their lack of relevant information and evidence.
[6]
In any event, the most formidable obstacle for the
applicant was his prospects of success. Here too, it cannot be
said that
the finding of the commissioner is one to which no
reasonable commissioner could on the evidence before him. The
documentary and
other evidence furnished by the company in its
opposing affidavit substantiated outright their claim that the
applicant was employed
as an independent contractor, and the
‘factors’ relied upon by the applicant in his claim that
he was an employee were
all reasonably explained away by the company.
[7]
Ultimately, it cannot be said the commissioner did
not exercise his discretion judicially on a consideration of all
relevant factors.
There was no justifiable reason to require the
company to put itself through a time- consuming arbitration process
in circumstances
where the applicant’s application disclosed no
prospects of success in the main hearing.
[8]
In the premises, I make the following order:
The
application to set aside the condonation ruling issued by the
commissioner on
20 May 2024 under case number WECT 5240-24 is
dismissed.
________________________________
B Whitcher
Judge of the Labour Court
of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For
the Applicant:
The Applicant
For
the Third Respondent: No appearance
[1]
Dated 20 May 2024: Case Number WECT 5240-24.
[2]
(2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC).