Jones and Others v Cold Chain (Proprietary) Limited (P09/14) [2015] ZALCPE 35 (26 May 2015)

Jones and Others v Cold Chain (Proprietary) Limited (P09/14) [2015] ZALCPE 35 (26 May 2015)

The court found that the applicants' delay in filing was not excessive and their explanation for the delay was reasonable, given their misunderstanding of the dismissal date. The applicants demonstrated good prospects of success if they could prove the respondent failed to consult as required by section 189A of the Labour Relations Act. The dispute of fact regarding whether proper consultations occurred is material and cannot be resolved on affidavit alone. Therefore, condonation for late filing is granted and the matter is referred to oral evidence to resolve the factual disputes central to the procedural fairness of the dismissals.

Citation
[2015] ZALCPE 35
Parties
Applicant: Carmen Jones; Applicant: Charleen Norman; Applicant: Petro van Zyl; Respondent: The Cold Chain (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2015
Case Number
P09/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Condonation Granted
Outcome
Condonation for late filing granted; matter referred to oral evidence on specified factual disputes.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Section 189a Consultation, Condonation, Operational Requirements Dismissal
Labour Law Procedural Fairness Section 189a Consultation Condonation Operational Requirements Dismissal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmen Jones

Applicant

Charleen Norman

Applicant

Petro van Zyl

Applicant

The Cold Chain (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Condonation Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's termination of the applicants' employment for operational requirements was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent properly consulted with the applicants as required by section 189A of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' delay in filing was not excessive and their explanation for the delay was reasonable, given their misunderstanding of the dismissal date. The applicants demonstrated good prospects of success if they could prove the respondent failed to consult as required by section 189A of the Labour Relations Act. The dispute of fact regarding whether proper consultations occurred is material and cannot be resolved on affidavit alone. Therefore, condonation for late filing is granted and the matter is referred to oral evidence to resolve the factual disputes central to the procedural fairness of the dismissals.

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing granted; matter referred to oral evidence on specified factual disputes.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late filing of this application is granted.
  • The matter is referred to oral evidence on the conditions set out in the judgment.