Fredericks v Grobler NO and Others (C590/2007) [2010] ZALC 18; [2010] 6 BLLR 644 (LC) (3 February 2010)

Fredericks v Grobler NO and Others (C590/2007) [2010] ZALC 18; [2010] 6 BLLR 644 (LC) (3 February 2010)

The court found that the commissioner correctly refused condonation for the applicant's late referral of his unfair labour practice dispute. The delay of approximately ten years was excessive and not adequately explained, despite the applicant's persistent pursuit of his grievance. The applicant's actions, including correspondence with various bodies, did not constitute service of process sufficient to interrupt prescription under the Prescription Act. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for condonation as set out in Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd, particularly regarding the length of delay and prospects of success. The commissioner did not err in her approach to prejudice,...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 18
Parties
Applicant: P Fredericks; Respondent: Hilda Grobler N.O; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Department of Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2010
Case Number
C590/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of Bargaining Council Condonation Ruling
Outcome
The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Referral, Prescription Act, Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion Policy, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Referral Prescription Act Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Policy Review of Arbitration Award

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Fredericks

Applicant

Hilda Grobler N.O

Respondent

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of Bargaining Council Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing condonation for the applicant's late referral of an unfair labour practice dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of approximately ten years in referring the dispute was excessive and justified.
  3. 3 Whether the running of prescription was interrupted by the applicant's actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner correctly refused condonation for the applicant's late referral of his unfair labour practice dispute. The delay of approximately ten years was excessive and not adequately explained, despite the applicant's persistent pursuit of his grievance. The applicant's actions, including correspondence with various bodies, did not constitute service of process sufficient to interrupt prescription under the Prescription Act. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for condonation as set out in Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd, particularly regarding the length of delay and prospects of success. The commissioner did not err in her approach to prejudice,...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the commissioner's ruling is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.