Molosioa v Eskom Holdings Limited (Komati Power Station) (JA1/19) [2020] ZALAC 44; [2021] 4 BLLR 368 (LAC) (3 November 2020)

Molosioa v Eskom Holdings Limited (Komati Power Station) (JA1/19) [2020] ZALAC 44; [2021] 4 BLLR 368 (LAC) (3 November 2020)

The appellant was not demoted, as she was appointed to the grade and position she accepted in writing, with salary and benefits appropriate to that grade. She never occupied the higher grade and did not lose any benefits she was entitled to. The Commissioners finding that no unfair labour practice was proved falls within the bounds of reasonableness. The Labour Court did not err in refusing condonation, as the review application had no prospects of success. Technical arguments regarding affidavits and procedural rules did not alter the substantive outcome.

Citation
[2020] ZALAC 44
Parties
Appellant: Hilda Molosioa; Respondent: Eskom Holdings Limited (Komati Power Station)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2020
Case Number
JA1/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Condonation Application for Late Review of CCMA Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Waglay, Coppin, Savage
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Condonation, Demotion, Ccma Jurisdiction, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Condonation Demotion Ccma Jurisdiction 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilda Molosioa

Appellant

Eskom Holdings Limited (Komati Power Station)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Condonation Application for Late Review of CCMA Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the condonation application for late filing of the review.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners award was reasonable and whether an unfair labour practice (demotion) was proved.
  3. 3 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction over the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not demoted, as she was appointed to the grade and position she accepted in writing, with salary and benefits appropriate to that grade. She never occupied the higher grade and did not lose any benefits she was entitled to. The Commissioners finding that no unfair labour practice was proved falls within the bounds of reasonableness. The Labour Court did not err in refusing condonation, as the review application had no prospects of success. Technical arguments regarding affidavits and procedural rules did not alter the substantive outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.