Lemley v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P 32/12) [2013] ZALCPE 7 (17 April 2013)

Lemley v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P 32/12) [2013] ZALCPE 7 (17 April 2013)

The court found that the applicant was not barred from referring a dispute afresh to the CCMA after withdrawing the original dispute before it was decided on the merits. The second respondent erred in finding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, as the subsequent dispute included claims for severance benefits not previously withdrawn. The CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate at least the entitlement to severance benefits dispute. Both the second and third respondents’ rulings were based on incorrect assessments and errors of law, and are reviewable and must be set aside. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the review application, had good prospects of...

Citation
[2013] ZALCPE 7
Parties
Applicant: Edward Lemley; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner E Loock N.O; Respondent: Commissioner J Forbes N.O; Respondent: T System SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Case Number
P 32/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Condonation for late filing of the review application is granted. The rulings of the second and third respondents are reviewed and set aside. The dispute is to be scheduled for arbitration before a different commissioner. No order as to costs.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Ccma Jurisdiction, Withdrawal of Dispute, Severance Benefits, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Condonation of Late Filing Ccma Jurisdiction Withdrawal of Dispute Severance Benefits Unfair Dismissal 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Lemley

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner E Loock N.O

Respondent

Commissioner J Forbes N.O

Respondent

T System SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is barred from referring a dispute afresh to the CCMA after withdrawing the original dispute before it was decided on the merits.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's subsequent dispute including severance benefits.
  3. 3 Whether the rulings of the second and third respondents are reviewable for error of law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not barred from referring a dispute afresh to the CCMA after withdrawing the original dispute before it was decided on the merits. The second respondent erred in finding that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, as the subsequent dispute included claims for severance benefits not previously withdrawn. The CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate at least the entitlement to severance benefits dispute. Both the second and third respondents’ rulings were based on incorrect assessments and errors of law, and are reviewable and must be set aside. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the review application, had good prospects of...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing of the review application is granted. The rulings of the second and third respondents are reviewed and set aside. The dispute is to be scheduled for arbitration before a different commissioner. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late filing of the review application is granted.
  • The second respondent’s ruling under case number ECPE 5759-09 and dated 18 March 2010 is reviewed and set aside.