Ruijgrok v Foshini (Pty) Ltd and Others (P169/98) [1998] ZALC 103 (6 November 1998)

Ruijgrok v Foshini (Pty) Ltd and Others (P169/98) [1998] ZALC 103 (6 November 1998)

The Labour Court held that Commissioner Finnemore had no jurisdiction to reconsider or set aside the condonation decision already made by Commissioner Bonthuys. The CCMA lacks competence to review or overturn its own commissioners' decisions; only the Labour Court may do so under section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitration award refusing condonation was not justifiable, as there was no rational objective basis for the arbitrator to exercise discretion already exercised by another commissioner. Accordingly, the arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The counter-application for review was dismissed due to unreasonable delay and absence of a condonation application.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 103
Parties
Applicant: E Ruijgrok; Respondent: Foshini (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration for the Eastern Cape
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 1998
Case Number
P169/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award refusing condonation is reviewed and set aside. The counter-application for review is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Jurisdiction of Ccma
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Referral Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Jurisdiction of Ccma

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E Ruijgrok

Applicant

Foshini (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration for the Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Commissioner Finnemore had jurisdiction to reconsider the condonation decision already made by Commissioner Bonthuys.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA may set aside decisions taken by its own commissioners.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award refusing condonation was justifiable in terms of the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that Commissioner Finnemore had no jurisdiction to reconsider or set aside the condonation decision already made by Commissioner Bonthuys. The CCMA lacks competence to review or overturn its own commissioners' decisions; only the Labour Court may do so under section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act. The arbitration award refusing condonation was not justifiable, as there was no rational objective basis for the arbitrator to exercise discretion already exercised by another commissioner. Accordingly, the arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The counter-application for review was dismissed due to unreasonable delay and absence of a condonation application.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award refusing condonation is reviewed and set aside. The counter-application for review is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award in case no. EC1416 dated 27 October 1997 issued under the auspices of the second respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • No order is made as to costs against the first respondent.