Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR224/02
2003.03.19
In the matter between
LENTSHA NORMAN Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
MARTIN’S FUNERAL UNDERTAKERS 3rd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
EX TEMPORE
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. The applicant referred a dispute about an alleged
unfair dismissal to the Commissioner for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration (“the CCMA”). His application
was brought two months out of the time period
prescribed by the Labour Relations Act. He then had to
bring an application for condonation. Condonation was
refused, and the commissioner who refused to grant
condonation based his refusal on the excellent
prospects of success of the respondent who had filed an
affidavit with the CCMA in support of its opposition
for the condonation application brought by the
applicant.
2. The applicant explained that his referral was out of
time due to a delay on the part of his union. That is
apparent from the ruling of the arbitrator. The
applicant alleged that the delay occurred because there
were several telephone calls made to and by his union,
which did not contribute to resolve the matter. His
version in this regard did not persuade me. What is
more, it did not persuade the commissioner, who
exercised his discretion , as he did not condone the
late referral, and that is a discretion with which this
court will not lightly interfere.
3. The commissioner, as I have already mentioned, had
before him an affidavit by the respondent deposed to by
Mr Collins. In this affidavit it is alleged that the
applicant had resigned by way of a letter, the contents
of which were clear, and a meeting was held. Attached
to the affidavit is a copy of the letter allegedly
written on the instructions of the applicant where, in
the last paragraph, he indicates that he is working
"under notice", which tends to support the respondent's
version placed before the commissioner.
4. There is also a handwritten note on the letter, signed
by Mr Collins. This signature is similar to that on the
affidavit and appears to be the same signature on the
note of 28 March 2001, where he wrote the following on
the applicant's letter:
1. "Resignation is accepted as from 28/3/01. You will be
expected to work 2 weeks' notice as per Basic Conditions of
Employment Act."
5. The applicant has done little to refute the contents of
the letter, and it is common cause that he indeed wrote
a letter in which he alleged that he warned his
employer (respondent) that he would report the
respondent to the CCMA for certain conduct. That is
correct, that is borne out by the letter in which he
does warn his employer about referring the matter to
the CCMA.
6. In all the circumstances I am unable to interfere with
the decision of the commissioner. He took into account
the degree of lateness, (it was substantial) the
explanation for the delay, (which was improbable). It
is trite that a party may not be excused for delays due
to the laxity of his or her representative. The
prospects of success are not good, as found by the
arbitrator, in that it appears that the applicant
resigned and later regretted his decision.
7. In the circumstances the application to review the
ruling of the commissioner is dismissed.
_______________
_
E. Revelas