Mhlongo v Fidelity Springbok Security Services (JS1267/02) [2003] ZALC 142 (5 February 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] ZALC 142
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JS1267/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JS1267/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Labour Court held that the applicant could not simply file a statement of case in the Labour Court as if the CCMA ruling did not exist. The proper procedure for challenging the CCMA arbitrator's ruling is to bring a review application in terms of section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitrator's ruling is binding until set aside. As the applicant failed to follow the correct procedure, the application was struck from the roll.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll due to procedural non-compliance.
Orders
- The application is struck from the roll.
02
Material facts
Parties
Moffat G Mhlongo
ApplicantFidelity Springbok Security Services
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application to Labour Court Following CCMA Arbitration Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant was dismissed or resigned from employment.
- 02
Whether the Labour Court can entertain the matter without first reviewing the CCMA ruling.
- 03
Whether the correct procedure was followed by the applicant in challenging the CCMA ruling.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that he was unfairly dismissed and disputed the authenticity of the resignation letter presented by the respondent, claiming the signature was not his. He argued that he could not obtain relief if the arbitrator ruled that no dismissal occurred.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the applicant had resigned, presenting a signed resignation letter as evidence. The respondent argued that it would be prejudiced if the arbitrator found a dismissal had occurred, as documentary evidence supported the absence of dismissal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
A party aggrieved by a CCMA ruling must bring an application for review and setting aside of the ruling under section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
The ruling of the CCMA arbitrator is binding and remains in force until set aside by a competent court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Labour Court held that the applicant could not simply file a statement of case in the Labour Court as if the CCMA ruling did not exist. The proper procedure for challenging the CCMA arbitrator's ruling is to bring a review application in terms of section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitrator's ruling is binding until set aside. As the applicant failed to follow the correct procedure, the application was struck from the roll.
Obiter and limits
- Parties dissatisfied with CCMA rulings must follow statutory review procedures rather than bypassing them.
- Documentary evidence, such as signed resignation letters, is critical in determining the existence of dismissal or resignation.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll due to procedural non-compliance.
- The application is struck from the roll.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
Sneller Verbatim/MS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS1267/02
2003-02-05
In the matter between
MOFFAT G MHLONGO Applicant
and
FIDELITY SPRINGBOK SECURITY SERVICES Respondent
________________
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS, J:
The applicant referred a dispute about an alleged unfair dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (âthe CCMAâ). It was in dispute before the Commissioner who conciliated the matter, that the applicant was indeed dismissed.
It was the case of the respondent that the applicant had resigned. The respondent tabled a copy of a resignation letter, which was signed by the applicant, was placed before the Commissioner, Mr R D Fitzcharles. According to his ruling, he listened to the evidence, during which the applicant submitted that he had not signed the letter of resignation and that the signature on the letter was not his.
The applicant was disbelieved and it appears from the ruling, that his evidence was rejected as he changed his version as to the signing of a 7.11 referral form "as compare to the signing of the letter of resignation." The Arbitrator added, that he was not persuaded either, that a dismissal in fact took place.
The applicant argued, that he would not be able to obtain the relief that he sought if the Arbitrator ruled that a dismissal did not take place. The respondent argued, that it would be prejudiced if the Arbitrator ruled that a dismissal had taken place, in that it had provided the necessary documentary evidence that a dismissal had not taken place.
If the applicant was aggrieved about this ruling, and to have it set aside, the correct procedure to follow is to bring an application for the review and setting aside of the ruling, in terms of section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act tt of 1995 (âthe Actâ).
It is not open to a party, who is not satisfied with a CCMA ruling, to simply proceed to the Labour Court and file a statement of case as if there were no ruling of the CCMA. The ruling of the Arbitrator is binding, in terms of the Labour Relations Act and it will stand, until set aside.
Consequently I make the following order:
The application is struck from the roll.
___
E. Revelas
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.