NTM and Others v Specialised Security Services (J329/2017) [2022] ZALCJHB 96 (11 May 2022)

NTM and Others v Specialised Security Services (J329/2017) [2022] ZALCJHB 96 (11 May 2022)

The court found that the respondent's position regarding the dismissal of the individual applicants was made unequivocally clear by 6 December 2016, when it was stated that the employees were dismissed following their failure to comply with the second ultimatum on 8 November 2016. Any uncertainty regarding the employment status was resolved at that point. The union's referral of the dispute to the CCMA on 12 January 2017 was therefore outside the 30-day period prescribed by section 191(1)(b)(i) of the LRA. No application for condonation accompanied the referral, and as a result, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Consequently, the Labour Court also lacked jurisdiction...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 96
Parties
Applicant: NTM obo THATANA and 192 OTHERS; Respondent: SPECIALISED SECURITY SERVICES
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Case Number
J329/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Jurisdictional Ruling on Referral to CCMA
Outcome
Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Condonation for Late Referral, Strike Action, Automatic Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Condonation for Late Referral Strike Action Automatic 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NTM obo THATANA and 192 OTHERS

Applicant

SPECIALISED SECURITY SERVICES

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Jurisdictional Ruling on Referral to CCMA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' referral of the dismissal dispute to the CCMA was made within the 30-day period prescribed by section 191(1)(b)(i) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in the absence of condonation for late referral.
  3. 3 Whether the date of dismissal was 8 November 2016, 6 December 2016, or 12 January 2017.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's position regarding the dismissal of the individual applicants was made unequivocally clear by 6 December 2016, when it was stated that the employees were dismissed following their failure to comply with the second ultimatum on 8 November 2016. Any uncertainty regarding the employment status was resolved at that point. The union's referral of the dispute to the CCMA on 12 January 2017 was therefore outside the 30-day period prescribed by section 191(1)(b)(i) of the LRA. No application for condonation accompanied the referral, and as a result, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Consequently, the Labour Court also lacked jurisdiction...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.

Orders

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