Madonsela v CCMA and Others (JR909/01) [2002] ZALC 110; [2002] 5 BLLR 440 (LC) (26 February 2002)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review of CCMA ruling — Applicant seeking review of CCMA decision refusing condonation for late filing — Commissioner failing to adhere to CCMA rules, particularly Rule 19 regarding sworn statements — Court finding grave irregularity in the process, leading to a lack of natural justice — Ruling set aside and matter remitted for a new hearing before a different Commissioner.

Sneller Verbatim/ssl 
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN )
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO:  JR909/01
2002­01­22
In the matter between 
AMOS MADONSELA Applicant
and
CCMA & OTHERS Respondent
_______________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T  
_____________________________________________________
LANDMAN  J:  
1. Mr   Madonsela,   who   was   previously   employed   by

Sabers  W  Services, applied to this court to review and  
set   aside   a   ruling   by   the   CCMA   dated   22   April   2001  
wherein   the   Commissioner   refused   to   condone   the   late  
filing of his application.
1.
2. It appears that the Commissioner took into account the  
application   for   the   condonation   of   the   late   filing  
which   was   lodged   by   Mr   Madonsela   and   the   statement  
filed   on   behalf   of   Sabers   Wholesalers.     The  
Commissioner came to the conclusion tha,t although the  
application was late it, was not excessively late. The  
Commissioner   was   influenced   by   the   fact   that   the  
employer   had   set   out   that   there   were   no   prospects   of  
success.
3. I am of the opinion that the Commissioner committed a  
grave   irregularity.   The   Commissioner   failed   to   adhere  
to the rules of the CCMA.  Rule 19 requires the answer  
to   the   application   for   condonation   to   be   under   oath.  
Sabers   Wholesalers  filed   an  unsworn   statement.    There  
is no indication that Mr Madonsela was informed that he  
could   reply   to   that   statement.     The   Commissioner   did  
not   call   on   the   parties   to   appear   and   deliver   their  
arguments.   The rules of the CCMA are there to ensure  
that effect is given to the rules of natural justice.

Mr   Madonsela   had   no   opportunity   to   deal   with   the  
allegations   made   by   Sabers   Wholesalers.   There   is   no  
indication that he even knew about it.
4. In the circumstances the application succeeds.
1. The ruling of 22 April 2001 is reviewed and set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to the CCMA to convene a hearing  
to   decide   on   whether   the   application   for   condonation  
should be granted.
3. This   hearing   is   to   take   place   before   a   Commissioner  
other than Commissioner M   M  Baloyi.  This hearing is to  
be held before the end of February 2002.
4. Sabers   Wholesalers   are   ordered   to   pay   Mr   Madonsela's  
costs.
Signed   and   dated   at   BRAAMFONTEIN   this   26 th  Day   of  
February 2002.
____________
AA Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa