National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR988/01) [2006] ZALCJHB 12 (8 November 2006)
The court found that the delay in filing the review application was adequately explained and not excessive, and that the prospects of success were overwhelming. The commissioner misapplied section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act by introducing irrelevant considerations and failing to apply the statutory requirements for reinstatement. There was no evidence that any of the exceptions to reinstatement applied, and the second applicant had requested reinstatement. The commissioner’s award of compensation was therefore unreasonable and constituted a gross irregularity. The court substituted the award with an order for reinstatement from the date of dismissal, as there was no evidence that...
- Citation
- [2006] ZALCJHB 12
- Parties
- Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Applicant: Daniel Ramatsetse; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eric Phindela N.O; Respondent: Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 8 November 2006
- Case Number
- JR988/01
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
- Outcome
- Application for condonation granted. Arbitration award reviewed and set aside. Second applicant reinstated from date of dismissal. Costs awarded to applicants.
- Judges
- Francis
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Condonation, Reinstatement, Compensation, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Union of Mineworkers
Applicant
Daniel Ramatsetse
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Eric Phindela N.O
Respondent
Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
- 2 Whether the commissioner misapplied section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act by awarding compensation instead of reinstatement.
- 3 Whether the second applicant should be reinstated from the date of dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the review application was adequately explained and not excessive, and that the prospects of success were overwhelming. The commissioner misapplied section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act by introducing irrelevant considerations and failing to apply the statutory requirements for reinstatement. There was no evidence that any of the exceptions to reinstatement applied, and the second applicant had requested reinstatement. The commissioner’s award of compensation was therefore unreasonable and constituted a gross irregularity. The court substituted the award with an order for reinstatement from the date of dismissal, as there was no evidence that...
Court Disposition
Application for condonation granted. Arbitration award reviewed and set aside. Second applicant reinstated from date of dismissal. Costs awarded to applicants.
Orders
- The commissioner’s finding awarding the second applicant nine months compensation is reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order that the third respondent is to reinstate the second applicant from the date of his dismissal.
- The third respondent is to pay the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment