Sneller Verbatim/mc
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J4469/99
2002-09-05
In the matter between
MPUMALANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1ST Respondent
2ND Respondent
3RD Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in terms of section 145 to
review an arbitration award made by the second
respondent in favour of the third respondent. The
respondent made an award to the effect that the
applicant is to pay the third respondent an amount
equivalent to two months of his normal salary in
respect of the months of February and March 1999.
1. 1. 2. The evidence before the arbitrator was that the
third respondent was employed by the Mpumalanga
Development Corporation as a commercial development
councillor in the FMME division where he had been
employed for almost 11 years. Before the arbitrator
was the undisputed fact that the third respondent's
salary was R6 095 per month.
3. At some stage the applicant offered a voluntary
severance package to its employees. It made it clear
to employees that those members who would be retained
for their skills, would not be eligible for the
voluntary severance package.
4. The third respondent applied for a voluntary severance
package and there was agreement between his superior
that he would remain in the applicant's employ until
31 March as his services were still required since a
coemployee or the person to whom he reported had
resigned from the corporation before.
5. The applicant informed the arbitrator that had it been
indicated to him that he had to leave immediately, he
would not have applied for a voluntary severance
package.
6. His services were terminated on 11 December 1998. The
letter of termination was faxed to him just before
16:00 on 11 December 1998, the same day. Prior thereto
he was not consulted that his services would end on
that day and he concluded his evidence by stating that
he had expected, or he reiterated that he had expected
to work till 31 March 1999.
1. 7. The arbitrator upheld the third respondent's version
of the agreement reached. It was argued on behalf of
the applicant that the main reason of the respondent
for pursuing the matter, was an attempt to unfairly
enrich himself. The arbitrator did not share this
view.
8. In order to be successful in a review application, the
applicant is obliged to demonstate that the arbitrator
came to a conclusion which was not rationally or
reasonably connected to the evidence which was led
before him.
9. There are no facts in support of the application for
review which justifies such a finding. Consequently
the application for review falls to be dismissed with
costs.
10. An application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 has also been set down
for the same day. The matter was postponed to the
opposed roll by JAMMY J on 18 December 2001.
11. The legal representative for the applicant was not in a
position to argue the matter and asked me to postpone
the matter on the instructions of his client. I
refused the application since this matter has continued
for a long time and I do not believe that there were
any prospects of success and there would have been no
point in postponing the matter further. There was no
formal application for a postponement nor a proper
explanation from the bar as to why a postponement was
necessary, no matter how many questions I asked in this
regard.
12. Labour disputes should be resolved as expeditiously as
possible. I am enjoined by the Act to keep that in
mind. This court is burdened with many cases and at all
costs it should be avoided that matters be remitted to
the system for no apparent reason.
1. 13. On the evidence before the arbitrator and in
support of the application in terms of section 138(1)
(c) of the Act, the third respondent is entitled to
payment of R9 839.23 multiplied by two (two months
remuneration as awarded by the arbitrator) which
amounts to R19 678,46.
14. Consequently I make the following order:
1. The award of the second respondent is made an order of
court.
2. The applicant (Mpumalanga Development Corporation) is
ordered to pay the third respondent (Mr Leon Smalman)
an amount equal to two months' remuneration, being
R19 678,46 (R9 839,23 x 2).
3. Interest is to accrue on the aforesaid amount at the
rate of 15,5% per annum, calculated as from 18 May 1999
to date of payment.
4. The applicant (Mpumalanga Development Corporation) is
ordered to pay the third respondent's costs in this
matter.
_______________
__
E. Revelas