Alpine Swiss Foods CC v Food and Allied Workers Union obo Munyani and Others (JR2680/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 361 (22 September 2017)
The court found that none of the grounds raised by the applicant met the statutory test for leave to appeal, as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not dispute the existence of the telephone conversation with the CCMA or the fact that it was aware of the hearing date. The issue was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 361
- Parties
- Applicant: Alpine Swiss Foods CC; Respondent: Food and Allied Workers Union obo Munyani, Ella & 11 Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Teladia, Shahid N.O
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2680/13
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Van Niekerk
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Notification of Hearing, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alpine Swiss Foods CC
Applicant
Food and Allied Workers Union obo Munyani, Ella & 11 Others
Respondent
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Teladia, Shahid N.O
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether the notification of the hearing to the applicant was sufficient under the law.
- 3 Whether costs should follow the result.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the grounds raised by the applicant met the statutory test for leave to appeal, as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not dispute the existence of the telephone conversation with the CCMA or the fact that it was aware of the hearing date. The issue was not the form of notification but whether the applicant was notified, which was established by the evidence. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: jR2680/13
In the matter between:
ALPINE SWISS FOODS CC
Applicant
and
FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
OBO MUNYANI,ELLA &11 OTHERS
First
Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
Second Respondent
TELADIA,SHAHID N.O
Third respondent
Delivered: 22 September 2017
RULING: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN NIEKERK J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgement delivered by this court on 4 August 2017 when the court dismissed, with costs, an application to review and set aside a rescission ruling made by the third respondent on 5 December 2013.
[2] The test to be applied is that set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts act, 10 of 2013. Leave to appeal may only be granted in circumstances where the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. This court has held that this is not a test to be applied lightly and that the statutory imperative of expeditious dispute resolution requires appeals to be limited to those matters where there is a reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment or where there is a legitimate dispute on the law.
[3] Nothing raised in the applicant’s grounds for appeal meets these criteria or adds anything to what was argued in the review
application. I accordingly deal with only some of the grounds for appeal raised in the present application. In particular, and in regard to the second ground of appeal concerning the telephone call made to Lewis by the CCMA prior to the hearing in question, the applicant did not deny that it has an employee by that name, nor did it dispute that Lewis was in contact with the CCMA on 16 September 2013. The fact of the telephone conversation is also not in dispute. Further, the fact that the applicant was aware of the hearing date is not in dispute – the applicant submitted only that it did not receive notification of the hearing in the form in which it contends it was entitled. Again, the issue was whether the applicant had been notified of the hearing, not whether it received a notice of set down by means of one of the methods of service for which it contends. As the court held, proof of registered mail from the post office and the undisputed telephone conversation between the CCMA and Lewis, constituted sufficient proof that the applicant was indeed aware of the hearing.
[4] In my view, an appeal would not have a reasonable prospect of success and the application stands to be dismissed. There is no reason why costs would not follow the result.
I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
André van Niekerk
Judge