Sneller Verbatim/HVDM
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR1153/02
2003-02-04
In the matter between
MAKHANYA Applicant
and
MEADOWLANDS POST OFFICE Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. In this matter the applicant, Mr Makhanya, was dismissed
by the respondent, (the Meadowlands Post Office), for
allegedly stealing R300 from an envelope. Copies of the
disciplinary inquiry were placed before me. This was
evidently also placed before the arbitrator or
commissioner who refused to grant the applicant
condonation for his late referral of the matter.
2. The dismissal took place in August 2000. In the
affidavit made to the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration deposed to by a union official,
it is stated that the dispute arose on 9 April 2001.
Clearly there is a great discrepancy of almost a year.
The dispute was then referred to the CCMA on 15 April
2002. According the commissioner it is therefore between
11 and 19 months late, depending on whose version is
accepted.
3. The applicant alleged that he relied on his union
organiser who assisted him in the disciplinary inquiry to
refer the dispute about his alleged unfair dismissal.
The union official did not deal with his matter
dilligently and then in December 2000 he approached an
alternative specialist for assistance.
4. The commissioner refused to condone the late referral on
the basis that he did not believe that the applicant's
prospect of success were good. I am unable to criticise
his finding in view of the fact that he had the evidence
of the disciplinary inquiry before him and he was
addressed on several of the issues. He regarded the delay
as excessive, which it was, and the explanation for the
delay, he found to have had no merit at all. It also
appears that the commissioner was aware that conflicting
facts were placed before him. He stated that:
"The dates stated by the applicant are confusing and do not
assist the consideration of the application."
5. Commissioners who decide condonation applications are
enjoined with a discretion whether or not to grant
condonation of a late referral, and as long as the
discretion is exercised judicially and reasonably there
exists no reason to interfere in such rulings.
6. In this particular instance, the applicant has not
demonstrated that the commissioner did not apply his mind
to the facts before him, or that there was any reason to
interfere with the exercise of his discretion. It must
also be remembered that in terms of the Labour Relations
Act, 66 of 1995, as amended, commissioners of the CCMA
are enjoined to promote the expeditious conclusion of
labour disputes. Matters that are referred to it 11
months after the dismissal heard and should not be such
late referrals should not be condoned unless very special
circumstances exist. There are clearly no such
circumstances in this matter.
7. Accordingly the application to review the commissioner's
award is dismissed.
_______________
_
E. Revelas