Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v SALGBC and Others (PR204/16) [2017] ZALCPE 15 (25 October 2017)

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v SALGBC and Others (PR204/16) [2017] ZALCPE 15 (25 October 2017)

The court found that the arbitrator had the discretion to dismiss the unfair dismissal referral due to undue delay, but exercised that discretion reasonably. The arbitrator considered the history of the matter, including delays caused by both parties and their legal representatives, and concluded that neither party was solely responsible for the delay. Although the court may have exercised its discretion differently, it was not convinced that the arbitrator's decision was so unreasonable that no other arbitrator could have reached the same conclusion. The review application was therefore dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to arbitration before another commissioner.

Citation
[2017] ZALCPE 15
Parties
Applicant: Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: SALGBC; Respondent: Phumele Dhlodhlo N.O.; Respondent: Luther Tembinkosi Kokose
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Case Number
PR204/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Review of Bargaining Council Arbitrator's Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Undue Delay, Arbitration Review, Unfair Dismissal, Discretion of Arbitrator
Labour Law Civil Procedure Undue Delay Arbitration Review Unfair Dismissal Discretion of Arbitrator

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

SALGBC

Respondent

Phumele Dhlodhlo N.O.

Respondent

Luther Tembinkosi Kokose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Review of Bargaining Council Arbitrator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exercised her discretion properly in refusing to dismiss the unfair dismissal referral due to undue delay.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the claim, particularly the 16-month period of inaction by the employee's attorney, justified dismissal of the referral.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's decision was so unreasonable that no other arbitrator could have reached the same conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had the discretion to dismiss the unfair dismissal referral due to undue delay, but exercised that discretion reasonably. The arbitrator considered the history of the matter, including delays caused by both parties and their legal representatives, and concluded that neither party was solely responsible for the delay. Although the court may have exercised its discretion differently, it was not convinced that the arbitrator's decision was so unreasonable that no other arbitrator could have reached the same conclusion. The review application was therefore dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to arbitration before another commissioner.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.