Mhlongo v Fidelity Springbok Security Services (JS1267/02) [2003] ZALC 142 (5 February 2003)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Unfair dismissal — Applicant alleging unfair dismissal by respondent — Respondent asserting resignation supported by signed letter — Commissioner rejecting applicant's evidence and ruling no dismissal occurred — Court confirming binding nature of CCMA ruling and proper procedure for review under section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act — Application struck from the roll.

Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS1267/02
2003-02-05
In the matter between
MOFFAT G MHLONGO Applicant
and
FIDELITY SPRINGBOK SECURITY SERVICES Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. The applicant referred a dispute about an alleged unfair  
dismissal   to   the   Commission   for   Conciliation,   Mediation  
and Arbitration   (“the CCMA”).   It was in dispute before  
the   Commissioner   who   conciliated   the   matter,   that   the  
applicant was indeed dismissed. 
2. It was the case of the respondent that the applicant had  
resigned.   The respondent tabled a copy of a resignation  
letter,   which   was   signed   by   the   applicant,   was   placed

before   the   Commissioner,   Mr   R   D   Fitzcharles.     According  
to his ruling, he listened to the evidence, during which  
the applicant submitted that he had not signed the letter  
of resignation and that the signature on the letter was  
not his.  
3. The   applicant   was   disbelieved   and   it   appears   from   the  
ruling, that his evidence was rejected as he changed his  
version   as   to   the   signing   of   a   7.11   referral   form   "as  
compare   to   the   signing   of   the   letter   of   resignation."  
The   Arbitrator   added,   that   he   was   not   persuaded   either,  
that a dismissal in fact took place.
4. The applicant argued, that he would not be able to obtain  
the relief that he sought if the Arbitrator ruled that a  
dismissal   did   not   take   place.     The   respondent   argued,  
that it would be prejudiced if the Arbitrator ruled that  
a dismissal had taken place, in that it had provided the  
necessary   documentary   evidence   that   a   dismissal   had   not  
taken place.
5. If the applicant was aggrieved about this ruling, and to  
have it set aside, the correct procedure to follow is to  
bring an application for the review and setting aside of  
the ruling, in terms of section 158(1)(g) of the Labour  
Relations Act tt of 1995 (“the Act”).
6. It  is not  open to  a party,  who is  not satisfied  with a  
CCMA   ruling,   to   simply   proceed   to   the   Labour   Court   and

file   a   statement   of   case   as   if   there   were   no   ruling   of  
the   CCMA.     The   ruling   of   the   Arbitrator   is   binding,   in  
terms   of   the   Labour   Relations   Act   and   it   will   stand,  
until set aside.
7. Consequently I make the following order:  
8. The application is struck from the roll.
_______________
E. Revelas