NTEU obo Moeketsi v CCMA and Others (JR1157/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 226 (16 August 2022)

NTEU obo Moeketsi v CCMA and Others (JR1157/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 226 (16 August 2022)

The court held that the applicant required condonation because the referral to the CCMA was made two years after becoming aware of the act or omission constituting the alleged unfair labour practice. The 90-day period for referral under section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the LRA runs from the date of the act or omission or the date the employee becomes aware of it, not from the exhaustion of internal remedies. The applicant's reliance on the completion of the internal grievance process to delay referral was a misinterpretation of the law. The commissioner exercised her discretion correctly in refusing condonation, as the applicant failed to provide a detailed and accurate explanation for the delay,...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 226
Parties
Applicant: NTEU obo Jan Mokgakele Moeketsi; Respondent: The CCMA; Respondent: Eva Ngobeni N.O; Respondent: Tshwane University of Technology
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2022
Case Number
JR1157/20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
G.N. Moshoana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion, Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Lra, Internal Remedies
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Jurisdiction Interpretation of Lra Internal Remedies

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NTEU obo Jan Mokgakele Moeketsi

Applicant

The CCMA

Respondent

Eva Ngobeni N.O

Respondent

Tshwane University of Technology

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant required condonation for the late referral of an unfair labour practice dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exercised her discretion correctly in refusing condonation.
  3. 3 When does the 90-day period for referral under section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the LRA commence?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant required condonation because the referral to the CCMA was made two years after becoming aware of the act or omission constituting the alleged unfair labour practice. The 90-day period for referral under section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the LRA runs from the date of the act or omission or the date the employee becomes aware of it, not from the exhaustion of internal remedies. The applicant's reliance on the completion of the internal grievance process to delay referral was a misinterpretation of the law. The commissioner exercised her discretion correctly in refusing condonation, as the applicant failed to provide a detailed and accurate explanation for the delay,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.