Jackson and Others v GPSSBC and Others (JR2509/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 302 (6 August 2014)

Jackson and Others v GPSSBC and Others (JR2509/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 302 (6 August 2014)

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner was entitled under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act to rescind the initial condonation ruling, as it had been made without considering a timeously filed opposing affidavit, thereby denying the respondent the right to be heard. The omission of 'Commissioner of Oaths' from the affidavit stamp was not material, as the attesting officer was an Advocate of the High Court and thus a Commissioner of Oaths by regulation. The applicants failed to provide sufficient detail to substantiate the claim of material interest by the Commissioner. The Commissioner correctly applied the Melane test, considering the excessive delay, inadequate explanation,...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 302
Parties
Applicant: Molewa Jackson & 53 Others; Respondent: GPSSBC; Respondent: JCB Choeman; Respondent: Department of Public Works
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2014
Case Number
JR2509/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Labour Practice, Late Referral, Commissioner Powers, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Labour Practice Late Referral Commissioner Powers 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molewa Jackson & 53 Others

Applicant

GPSSBC

Respondent

JCB Choeman

Respondent

Department of Public Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner was entitled to rescind the initial condonation ruling under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to include 'Commissioner of Oaths' on the affidavit stamp invalidated the affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner had a material interest in the dispute and was disqualified from attesting the affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner was entitled under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act to rescind the initial condonation ruling, as it had been made without considering a timeously filed opposing affidavit, thereby denying the respondent the right to be heard. The omission of 'Commissioner of Oaths' from the affidavit stamp was not material, as the attesting officer was an Advocate of the High Court and thus a Commissioner of Oaths by regulation. The applicants failed to provide sufficient detail to substantiate the claim of material interest by the Commissioner. The Commissioner correctly applied the Melane test, considering the excessive delay, inadequate explanation,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.