Lesiba v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry (NBCRFI) and Others (JR 1190/2008) [2010] ZALC 256 (21 December 2010)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a truthful and sufficient explanation for his absence from the conciliation meeting. The commissioner considered all representations and evidence, including proof that notification had been sent to the applicant’s legal advisor and that the applicant had given two...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] ZALC 256
- Parties
- Applicant: Pale Eric Lesiba; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry (NBCRFI); Respondent: Commissioner D.M. Africa N.O.; Respondent: Staff Initiative (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 1190/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- Coetzee
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Rescission Application, Failure to Attend Conciliation, Notification of Hearing
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pale Eric Lesiba
Applicant
National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry (NBCRFI)
Respondent
Commissioner D.M. Africa N.O.
Respondent
Staff Initiative (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the conciliation meeting.
- 2 Whether the applicant provided a truthful and sufficient explanation for his absence.
- 3 Whether the commissioner’s ruling dismissing the rescission application was reviewable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a truthful and sufficient explanation for his absence from the conciliation meeting. The commissioner considered all representations and evidence, including proof that notification had been sent to the applicant’s legal advisor and that the applicant had given two conflicting explanations for his absence. The applicant did not address prospects of success, and no specific recognised ground of review was formulated. The commissioner’s ruling was not unreasonable and was therefore not reviewable.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO JR 1190/2008
In the matter between:
PALE ERIC LESIBA .....................................................................................Applicant
and
NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE ROAD FREIGHT INDUSTRY (NBCRFI) ................................................................................First Respondent
COMMISSIONER D.M. AFRICA N.O. ........................................Second Respondent
STAFF INITIATIVE (PTY) LTD .......................................................Third Respondent
______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
COETZEE AJ:
Introduction
1. The Applicant seeks to review and set aside a ruling dismissing his application to rescind a dismissal of his case before the Bargaining Council for failure to attend the Conciliation proceedings.
Background
2. The Applicant failed to attend the conciliation.
3. The Commissioner dismissed the matter.
4. The Applicant filed an application to rescind the dismissal ruling.
Analysis of the facts
5. Applicant in a short affidavit explained that he did not attend the conciliation meeting as he was not notified of the date.
6. He also contended that his Legal Advisor was not informed of the conciliation meeting.
7. The Employer on an affidavit submitted proof that the matter was properly set down and that the notice of set down had been faxed to Applicant’s Legal Advisors.
8. The Employer, in addition, submitted (hearsay evidence) that the Case Management Officer at the Bargaining Council had received a telephone call from the Applicant’s Legal Advisors informing her that the Applicant was critically ill in hospital, and explanation different from the one tendered in the affidavit.
9. The Applicant did not deal with the prospects of success in his Application while the Employer contended that a fair disciplinary hearing resulted in the dismissal of Applicant.
Analysis
10. Applicant’s founding affidavit in the Review Application does not specify a specific ground for the review of the ruling.
11. Applicant however in his supplementary founding affidavit seeks to set out further grounds of review. Again, no specific recognised ground of review is formulated.
12. The Second Respondent clearly considered the representations and evidence before him.
13. Second Respondent held:
13.1. That proof was submitted that the notification had been sent to Applicant’s Legal Advisor and that Applicant had tendered two conflicting explanations for not attending the conciliation meeting.
13.2. That Applicant had not been truthful about the reason for not attending the Conciliation meeting.
13.3. Second Respondent’s ruling is not one that a reasonable Commissioner could not have made.
Order
14. The application is dismissed.
15. There is no order as to costs.
____________________________
COETZEE AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
DATE OF HEARING: 21 DECEMBER 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21 December 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR APPLICANT: In Person
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: No appearance