Metz Transport (Pty) Ltd v Furniture Bedding and Upholstery Industry Bargaining Council Greater Northern Regions and Others (J5861/00) [2001] ZALC 176 (17 October 2001)
The court found that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by refusing the employer an opportunity to respond to the condonation application. Additionally, the affidavit submitted by the employees did not contain sufficient information to justify condonation. As a result, the ruling of the Commissioner was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 176
- Parties
- Applicant: Metz Bedding (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Furniture Bedding & Upholstery Industry Bargaining Council Greater Northern Region; Respondent: M Masters NO; Respondent: Kennedy Nemasisi; Respondent: Bright Leuta
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J5861/00
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review granted; Commissioner's ruling set aside and matter referred back for reconsideration before a different Commissioner.
- Judges
- A A Landman
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Gross Irregularity, Review of Commissioner Decision, Procedural Fairness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Metz Bedding (Pty) Limited
Applicant
Furniture Bedding & Upholstery Industry Bargaining Council Greater Northern Region
Respondent
M Masters NO
Respondent
Kennedy Nemasisi
Respondent
Bright Leuta
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by denying the employer an opportunity to respond to the condonation application.
- 2 Whether the material before the Commissioner was sufficient to justify condonation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by refusing the employer an opportunity to respond to the condonation application. Additionally, the affidavit submitted by the employees did not contain sufficient information to justify condonation. As a result, the ruling of the Commissioner was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was referred back to the Bargaining Council to be reconsidered before a different Commissioner.
Court Disposition
Application for review granted; Commissioner's ruling set aside and matter referred back for reconsideration before a different Commissioner.
Orders
- The ruling of the Commissioner is reviewed and set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the first respondent for reconsideration before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
JUDGMENT
3 J5861/00-JduP
Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J5861/00
2001.10.17
In the matter between
METZ BEDDING (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
and
FURNITURE BEDDING & UPHOLSTERY 1st Respondent
INDUSTRY BARGAINING COUNCIL GREATER
NORTHERN REGION
M MASTERS NO 2nd Respondent
KENNEDY NEMASISI 3rd Respondent
BRIGHT LEUTA 4th Respondent
___________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
__________________________________________________________
LANDMAN, J: Two employees who had been dismissed referred a dispute to the CCMA. The employer was wrongly cited and the employees thereafter referred a second dispute to the Commission. The matter came before a Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted an affidavit by the two employees, presumably as an application for condonation, although it did not set out all the matters which should be set out in an application for condonation. A request was made by the employer for permission to deal with that affidavit. This was denied. The Commissioner went on to condone the application for condonation. Thereafter this application for review was launched. It is quite clear that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by not allowing the employer an opportunity to deal with the application for condonation, and secondly, the material which served before the Commissioner could not possibly have caused him to decide that there was good cause for condonation. In the circumstances therefore the ruling is reviewed and set aside and referred back to the first respondent for the matter to be reconsidered before a Commissioner other than the second respondent. ___________________ A A Landman Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa ---ooo0ooo---
LANDMAN, J: Two employees who had been dismissed referred a dispute to the CCMA. The employer was wrongly cited and the employees thereafter referred a second dispute to the Commission. The matter came before a Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted an affidavit by the two employees, presumably as an application for condonation, although it did not set out all the matters which should be set out in an application for condonation. A request was made by the employer for permission to deal with that affidavit. This was denied. The Commissioner went on to condone the application for condonation. Thereafter this application for review was launched.
It is quite clear that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by not allowing the employer an opportunity to deal with the application for condonation, and secondly, the material which served before the Commissioner could not possibly have caused him to decide that there was good cause for condonation.
In the circumstances therefore the ruling is reviewed and set aside and referred back to the first respondent for the matter to be reconsidered before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.
___________________
A A Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
---ooo0ooo---
3