IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH
CASE NO: P201/98
In the matter between:
TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS' UNION 1st Applicant
TOTU KUSELO AND 18 OTHERS 2nd 20th Applicants
and
KEI SECURITY Respondent
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS, J :
[1] The second and further applicants' services were
terminated by the respondent on 9 March 1998. The
applicants challenged their dismissal by the respondent
and the matter has come before the Labour Court in
terms of section 191 (5) (b) of the Labour Relations
Act, 66 of 1995 ("the Act").
[2] The respondent has raised three points in limine
relating to the following issues:
1) The applicants' delay in filing its statement of case.
1) 2) The state of the applicants' pleadings and failure
to comply with the provisions of Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) and
(iii) of the Rules of Conduct of Proceedings in the
Labour Court.
[2] The question of the late filing of the statement of
case has already been disposed of in the sense that the
matter has been postponed to 17 June 1998 for the
applicants to bring an application for condonation to
this Court.
[3] Insofar as the failure to comply with the provisions
of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court are concerned, I deal
with as follows.
[4] In terms of section 151 of the Act, this Court is
established as a court of law and a court of record.
This Court is a superior court that has authority,
inherent powers and standing in relation to matters
under its jurisdiction, equal to that which a court of
the Provincial Division of the High Court has in
relation to matters under its jurisdiction.
[5] In terms of Rule 6 of the Labour Court Rules a document
initiating proceedings is known as a "Statement of
Claim" and must:
(a) have a heading containing the following
information:
(i) the title of the matter;
(ii) the case number assigned by the registrar to
the matter;
(iii) an address of the party delivering the
document at which that party will accept notices and
service of all documents in the proceedings; and
(iv) a notice advising the other party that if that
party intends opposing the matter, a response must be
delivered in terms of subrule (iii) within 14 day of
service of the statement of claim, failing which the
matter may be heard in that party's absence and an
order may be made against that party.
(b) The statement of claim must also have a substantive
part containing the following:
(i) The names, description and addresses of the parties;
(ii) A clear, concise statement of the material facts
in chronological order on which the party relies,
which statement must be sufficiently particular to
enable any opposing party to reply to that
document; and
(iii) a clear and concise statement of the
legal issues that may arise from the material facts,
which statement must be sufficiently particular to
enable any opposing party to reply to the document; and
(iv) the relief sought.
(c) It must be signed by the party to the
proceedings;
(d) Express all dates, sums and numbers contained in the
documents in figures; and
(e) be accompanied by a schedule listing the documents that
are material and relevant to the claim.
[6] In my opinion the information given by the applicant in
this matter in its statement of claim is sparse and not
sufficiently particular to enable the respondent to
reply properly thereto. On the papers which the
applicants have filed, I cannot determine what the
exact nature and extent of the dispute between the
parties is, to decide whether this court has
jurisdiction or not.
[7] Even though reference is made to a dismissal, which
seems to be one which is allegedly an automatically
unfair dismissal, the papers are lacking with regard to
an explanation why the dismissal is described in these
terms. The matter apparently relates to a procedural or
unprocedural strike. I cannot determine which one of
the two is alleged at this stage.
[8] The papers do not allege that the dismissal was not for
a fair reason. Neither
is it alleged whether or not, a fair procedure was
followed.
[9] It is not clear to me exactly what relief is sought.
[10] Para 17 of the statement of case reads as follows:
[1] "It is with that note therefore that the dispute at plant level coincided with
the other one at national level."
[11] Firstly, it must be pointed out that I am not in a
position to determine which disputes existed at the
time and what the impact would be on this particular
case. That is not pleaded with any sufficient
particularity. Para 18 and 19 of the statement of case
merely read as follows:
"18. The dispute at plant level was about double pay on Sundays while the
dispute at national level was about wages and conditions of employment.
(Copy of pamphlet is attached hereto as Annex
ure 'E').
19. The dispute at plant level was superceded/preceded by the
dispute at
national level."
[12] The aforesaid does not make sense to me. A proper
reading of both parties’ documents do not assist me in
determining what the issues between the parties are.
The applicants’ papers are not intelligible enough to
assist therewith.
[13] In my opinion, even if a proper pretrial is held in
this matter, these shortcomings in the papers will not
be addressed sufficiently. Consequently the
respondent's exception to the applicants' statement of
case must succeed.
[14] I make the following order:
(a) The matter is postponed until 17 June
1999.
(b) The applicants are directed to file their condonation
application on or before 27 May 1999.
(c) The respondent is directed to file its answering
affidavits on or before 10 June1999.
(d) Any reply thereto may be filed by 15
June1999.
[15] And: (i) The applicants are directed to amend their
statement of claim in order that it might conform with
the provisions of Rule 6 within 14 days of the date of
this order and should do so by no later than 10 June
1999.
(ii) The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent's
costs of this application.
E REVELAS
Date of hearing: 29 April 1999
Date of Judgment: 29 April 1999
For the applicant: Mr Lubabalo of Transport and General Workers Union
(Umtata)
For the responent: Adocate R Bwade
Instructed by: Drake Flemmer and Orsmond
This judgment is also available on the Internet at
website:
http//www.law.wits.ac.za/labourcrt