National Construction Building and Allied Workers Union v Masinga and Others (J 1879/99) [1999] ZALC 1 (1 January 1999)

National Construction Building and Allied Workers Union v Masinga and Others (J 1879/99) [1999] ZALC 1 (1 January 1999)

The court held that the review application was fatally defective due to the late and inadequate condonation application, which failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay or address the merits of the case. The applicant did not demonstrate that the failure to notify the union before the disciplinary enquiry led to an unfair dismissal. The commissioner correctly applied the law in treating schedule 8 as a guideline rather than binding law, supported by the authority of Moropane v Gilbeys Distillers & Vintners. The review application was found to be wholly without merit, and condonation was refused. The court also criticised the conduct of the CCMA and its commissioner for...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 1
Parties
Applicant: National Construction Building and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Vusi Masinga and Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 1999
Case Number
J 1879/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent.
Judges
Sutherland
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Ccma Award, Procedural Fairness, Code of Good Practice, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Ccma Award Procedural Fairness Code of Good Practice Unfair Dismissal

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

National Construction Building and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

Vusi Masinga and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the supporting affidavit for the review application can be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed an irregularity by finding that the employer followed a fair procedure despite not complying with schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the guidelines in schedule 8 have the force of law or are merely advisory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the review application was fatally defective due to the late and inadequate condonation application, which failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay or address the merits of the case. The applicant did not demonstrate that the failure to notify the union before the disciplinary enquiry led to an unfair dismissal. The commissioner correctly applied the law in treating schedule 8 as a guideline rather than binding law, supported by the authority of Moropane v Gilbeys Distillers & Vintners. The review application was found to be wholly without merit, and condonation was refused. The court also criticised the conduct of the CCMA and its commissioner for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.