HOSPERSA and Others v Public Service Co-Ordinating Bargaining Council and Others (C502-2011) [2013] ZALCCT 53 (22 November 2013)

HOSPERSA and Others v Public Service Co-Ordinating Bargaining Council and Others (C502-2011) [2013] ZALCCT 53 (22 November 2013)

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the excessive delay of 126 days in filing the review application. The explanation offered, based on internal union administrative problems and the late delivery of the ruling, was inadequate and amounted to no explanation at all. The applicants abused the dispute resolution system by reformulating the same dispute under a different statutory provision after failing to challenge the initial adverse ruling. The prospects of success on the main claim were non-existent, as the dispute referred was essentially the same unfair labour practice previously adjudicated. The second respondent, despite the incoherence of his...

Citation
[2013] ZALCCT 53
Parties
Applicant: HOSPERSA and Others; Respondent: Public Service Co-Ordinating Bargaining Council; Respondent: Stephen Bhana NO; Respondent: Minister of Community Safety, Western Cape
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Case Number
C502-2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review; Opposed by Third Respondent; Third Respondent Also Sought Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit.
Outcome
Application for condonation for the late filing of the review application is dismissed with costs. Third respondent's late filing of its answering affidavit is condoned.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Unfair Labour Practice, Interpretation of Collective Agreement, Abuse of Dispute Resolution, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Unfair Labour Practice Interpretation of Collective Agreement Abuse of Dispute Resolution Prospects of Success

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOSPERSA and Others

Applicant

Public Service Co-Ordinating Bargaining Council

Respondent

Stephen Bhana NO

Respondent

Minister of Community Safety, Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review; Opposed by Third Respondent; Third Respondent Also Sought Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is adequate and acceptable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have prospects of success in the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the excessive delay of 126 days in filing the review application. The explanation offered, based on internal union administrative problems and the late delivery of the ruling, was inadequate and amounted to no explanation at all. The applicants abused the dispute resolution system by reformulating the same dispute under a different statutory provision after failing to challenge the initial adverse ruling. The prospects of success on the main claim were non-existent, as the dispute referred was essentially the same unfair labour practice previously adjudicated. The second respondent, despite the incoherence of his...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for the late filing of the review application is dismissed with costs. Third respondent's late filing of its answering affidavit is condoned.

Orders

  • The late filing by third respondent of its answering affidavit in respect of the application for review is condoned.
  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the review application is dismissed with costs.