H & W Distributors v CCMA and Others (13 July 2023) (C95/2022) [2023] ZALCCT 45 (13 July 2023)

H & W Distributors v CCMA and Others (13 July 2023) (C95/2022) [2023] ZALCCT 45 (13 July 2023)

The court found that although not all respondent employees signed the initial referral to the CCMA, their subsequent attendance and participation at both conciliation and arbitration constituted ratification of the referral, in line with the principles established in Adams and ABC Telesales. The CCMA therefore had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCCT 45
Parties
Applicant: H & W Distributors; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Chitane Soza, N.O.; Respondent: Hendrich Theodore Pofadder; Respondent: Kenneth Van Schalkwyk; Respondent: Lesego Klip
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Case Number
C95/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
K Naidoo
Legal Topics
Ccma Jurisdiction, Gross Irregularity, Unfair Dismissal, Default Award, Ratification of Referral
Labour Law Civil Procedure Ccma Jurisdiction Gross Irregularity Unfair Dismissal Default Award Ratification of Referral

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H & W Distributors

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Chitane Soza, N.O.

Respondent

Hendrich Theodore Pofadder

Respondent

Kenneth Van Schalkwyk

Respondent

Lesego Klip

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair dismissal dispute where not all employees signed the initial referral.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by proceeding in the absence of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration hearing date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although not all respondent employees signed the initial referral to the CCMA, their subsequent attendance and participation at both conciliation and arbitration constituted ratification of the referral, in line with the principles established in Adams and ABC Telesales. The CCMA therefore had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Regarding the alleged gross irregularity, the court held that the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration date via SMS, as permitted by CCMA Rule 5A, and was further contacted telephonically on the day of the hearing. The arbitrator acted reasonably in proceeding after waiting for the applicant and confirming notification. The...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued under case number NC2995-21 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.