Rustenburg Platinum Mines v Nosilela and Others (JR381/01) [2002] ZALC 109; [2002] 5 BLLR 480 (LC) (26 February 2002)

Sneller Verbatim/ssl 
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN )
CASE NO:  JR381/01
2002­01­22
In the matter between 
RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES Applicant
and
NOSILELA & OTHERS Respondents
_______________________________________________________
J   U   D   G   M   E   N   T  
_______________________________________________________
LANDMAN  J:  
1. This is an application in terms of s 158(1)(g) of the  
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 to review and set aside  
the   rulings   of   a   Commissioner   of   the   CCMA,   the   23rd  
respondent, in this matter.

2. The rulings are contained in the papers. They relate to  
the fact that the Commissioner decided that the first  
respondent,   one   Mr   Nosilela,   was   entitled   to   refer   a  
dispute   on   his   behalf   and   on   behalf   of   21   fellow­
employees.  It is clear form LRA 7/11 that Mr Nosilela  
referred the dispute to the CCMA. He purported to do so  
on   behalf   of   2nd   and   22nd   respondents   whose   names  
appear on an annexure to that referral.
3. There is nothing in the papers that indicated they had  
authorised   Mr   Nosilela   to   refer   the   matter   on   their  
behalf.  They could have done this.  They individually  
signed a list which was attached to the referral of the  
dispute   for   arbitration,   thereby   indicating   that   they  
associate themselves with the referral to arbitration.
4. Section 191(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995  
states that:
"If   there   is   a   dispute   about   the   fairness   of   a  
dismissal,   the   dismissed   employees   may   refer   the  
dispute   in   writing   within   30   days   from   date   of  
dismissal to ­
(a) a   council.   If   the   parties   to   the   dispute   fall  
within the registered scope of that council, and

(b) the Commission, if no council has jurisdiction."
5. It is trite law that a trade union may refer a dispute  
to   the   CCMA   for   and   on   behalf   of   its   members.     This  
court has held on a number of occasions, see  Sigwale &  
Others   v   Libanon   (a   Division   of   Kloof   Gold   Mine   Ltd)  
[2000]   BLLR   215   (LC)   223F­J   that   it   is   not   competent  
for an individual employee to refer a dispute on behalf  
of fellow­employees.
6. It would of course be competent for a fellow­employee  
who   has   a   power   of   attorney   or   is   in   some   other   way  
mandated or   authorised to further dispute, to do so.  
In   this   particular   case   there   is   no   indication   that  
this was done. It is on this basis that I come to the  
conclusion   that   the   Commissioner   made   a   finding   of  
which   is   wrong   in   law.     This   being   so   the   ruling   is  
reviewable.
7. The decision is therefore reviewed and set aside in the  
following terms:
1. The   23rd   respondent's   finding   that   the   2nd   to   22nd  
respondents   properly  referred   the  dispute   to  the   CCMA  
as contemplated in section 191 of the Labour Relations  
Act is reviewed and set aside.   However, the referral

in   respect   of   the   first   respondent   is   unaffected   by  
this judgment.
2. The   23rd   respondent's   finding   that   2nd   to   22nd  
respondents   could   be   joined   as   co­respondents   in   the  
dispute referred to the CCMA by the first respondent is  
reviewed and set aside.
3. There is no order for costs.
Signed and dated at BRAAMFONTEIN this 26 th day of February
2002.
______________
AA Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa