Kellerman v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C312/2017) [2018] ZALCCT 16 (16 May 2018)

Kellerman v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C312/2017) [2018] ZALCCT 16 (16 May 2018)

The court found that the Commissioner’s determination of the date of the dispute and the extent of the delay was reasonable and supported by the applicant’s own admissions. The explanation for the delay was unconvincing, and the Commissioner’s assessment of the prospects of success was justified, as the applicant’s salary and status were not diminished and the alleged demotion was not substantiated. The applicant’s further ground for review, based on the alleged breach of the parole evidence rule, was without merit, as the procedure followed was in accordance with CCMA rules. The Commissioner’s ruling was therefore not susceptible to review.

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 16
Parties
Applicant: Robert Adriaan Kellerman; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Howard Adams; Respondent: Attix UK Ltd trading as Redstor
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2018
Case Number
C312/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application to Review a Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Labour Practice, Demotion, Late Referral, Ccma Rules
Labour Law Condonation Unfair Labour Practice Demotion Late Referral Ccma Rules

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

Robert Adriaan Kellerman

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Howard Adams

Respondent

Attix UK Ltd trading as Redstor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application to Review a Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner erred in denying condonation for the late referral of an unfair labour practice dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner correctly determined the date on which the dispute arose.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner’s determination of the date of the dispute and the extent of the delay was reasonable and supported by the applicant’s own admissions. The explanation for the delay was unconvincing, and the Commissioner’s assessment of the prospects of success was justified, as the applicant’s salary and status were not diminished and the alleged demotion was not substantiated. The applicant’s further ground for review, based on the alleged breach of the parole evidence rule, was without merit, as the procedure followed was in accordance with CCMA rules. The Commissioner’s ruling was therefore not susceptible to review.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.