Mabirimisa v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 481/08) [2011] ZALCJHB 191 (20 December 2011)

Mabirimisa v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 481/08) [2011] ZALCJHB 191 (20 December 2011)

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the lengthy delay in referring his dispute, and the second respondent's refusal to grant condonation was not so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have reached it. Furthermore, the applicant's dispute was not one of mutual interest or severance and was incorrectly referred to the bargaining council, which lacked jurisdiction to resolve pension disputes involving the Government Employees’ Pension Fund. The applicant's proper remedy would have been to approach the High Court for a declaratory order regarding the commencement date of his pensionable service. The review application was...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 191
Parties
Applicant: Mabirimisa Nkhanedzeni Ewert; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Denga Mulima; Respondent: MEC for Public Works; Respondent: Government Employees’ Pension Fund
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Case Number
JR 481/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application to Review Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
S B Hardie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction, Pension Dispute, Late Referral, Mutual Interest, Severance
Labour Law Condonation Jurisdiction Pension Dispute Late Referral Mutual Interest Severance

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabirimisa Nkhanedzeni Ewert

Applicant

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Denga Mulima

Respondent

MEC for Public Works

Respondent

Government Employees’ Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application to Review Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a comprehensive explanation for the delay in referring the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the condonation ruling by the second respondent is reviewable.
  3. 3 Whether the bargaining council had jurisdiction to resolve the pension dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the lengthy delay in referring his dispute, and the second respondent's refusal to grant condonation was not so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have reached it. Furthermore, the applicant's dispute was not one of mutual interest or severance and was incorrectly referred to the bargaining council, which lacked jurisdiction to resolve pension disputes involving the Government Employees’ Pension Fund. The applicant's proper remedy would have been to approach the High Court for a declaratory order regarding the commencement date of his pensionable service. The review application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.