PagElign
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case NomG.362/2023
In the matter between:
BEVIN PETER ABELS Applicant
and
UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH First Respondent
COMMISSIONER DANIEL DU. PLESSIS N.O. Second Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION Third Respondent
Heard: 25 June 2025
Delivered: 4 July 2025
JUDGMENT
VENTER AJ
2
Introduction
[1] | In this opposed application, the applicant approached this Court seeking an order
reviewing and setting aside an arbitration award, dated 21 May 2023, issued by
the second respondent (Commissioner), acting under the auspices.of the third
respondent, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
[2] In the award, the Commissioner found that the applicant's dismissaliwas both
substantively and procedurally fair, and the application was dismissed.
[38] The application for review was served and filed;outside the»prescribed statutory
period and the court was therefore, also.called upon to determine whether
condonation should be granted.
Background and evidence before the Commissioner
[4] The applicant was employed »by the first respondent (the university) until his
dismissal on 23 May 2022..Heheld the position of a Faculty Administrator. In this
capacity, he was responsible for providing administrative support to the
respondent’s Faculty of Science.
[5] The applicant challenged both substantive and procedural fairness, and the
arbitration proceedings were held before the Commissioner on 7 November 2022
and/3 May 2023. The applicant was represented by a legal practitioner, while the
university was represented by its Deputy Director of Employee Relations.
[6] Prior to the arbitration proceedings, the parties entered into a pre-arbitration
agreement in terms of which the following facts were common cause:
3
6.1 On 7 March 2022, the applicant was invited to attend a meeting to discuss
the university’s concerns regarding the applicant’s poor work performance
and alleged misconduct.
6.2 The meeting took place on 7 April 2022, and on 29 April 2022, the university
addressed a letter to the applicant and requested that he provide written
representations as to why he should not be dismissed. The applicant
emailed his representations to the university on 6 May 2022,
6.3 On 23 May 2022, the applicant was notified of the university’s decision to
terminate his employment due to incapacity related to poor work
performance. His employment was terminated with three months’ notice.
6.4 The applicant was not required to tender.his services during the notice
period.
6.5 The applicant began working)for the university in 2002 and served as the
Faculty Administraton.fromJuly 1, 2006, until his dismissal. At the time of
his dismissal, theyapplicant’s gross monthly salary was R40 834,21.
6.6 It was alsoagreed, that during January 2021, the applicant was medically
diagnosed with depression.
6.7 Theparties were also in agreement that there were poor work performance
issueS»prior to the diagnosis of depression. The applicant conceded, on
record, during the university's evidence to all the performance-related
issues contained in the university’s bundle of evidence.
6.8 It was disputed whether the applicant’s performance improved during the
Performance Improvement Plan, which was established according to the
university’s policies.