SAMWU obo Members v Piotrans (Pty) and Others (JR1095/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 2 (6 January 2016)

SAMWU obo Members v Piotrans (Pty) and Others (JR1095/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 2 (6 January 2016)

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner acted irregularly by deciding the condonation application solely on the papers without obtaining the parties' agreement or setting the matter down for oral submissions, as required by the bargaining council rules. The Commissioner failed to consider the applicants' replying affidavit, which was submitted three days after the ruling, and did not provide the applicants an opportunity to seek condonation for its late filing. The Court held that the audi alteram partem principle was not satisfied, and the Commissioner should have either set the matter down for oral hearing or directed written submissions. As a result, the ruling refusing...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 2
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo 157 Members; Respondent: Piotrans (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: C Brummer N.O.; Respondent: South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 January 2016
Case Number
JR1095/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
The condonation ruling is reviewed and set aside; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by a different Commissioner; no order as to costs.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Audi Alteram Partem, Review of Arbitration Award, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Audi Alteram Partem Review of Arbitration Award Disciplinary Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo 157 Members

Applicant

Piotrans (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

C Brummer N.O.

Respondent

South African Road Passenger Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner committed an irregularity by deciding the condonation application on papers without oral submissions or agreement of the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to consider the applicants' replying affidavit constituted a reviewable irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were denied a fair hearing in the condonation application process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner acted irregularly by deciding the condonation application solely on the papers without obtaining the parties' agreement or setting the matter down for oral submissions, as required by the bargaining council rules. The Commissioner failed to consider the applicants' replying affidavit, which was submitted three days after the ruling, and did not provide the applicants an opportunity to seek condonation for its late filing. The Court held that the audi alteram partem principle was not satisfied, and the Commissioner should have either set the matter down for oral hearing or directed written submissions. As a result, the ruling refusing...

Court Disposition

The condonation ruling is reviewed and set aside; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by a different Commissioner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The ruling made by the second respondent under case number RPNT 2716, 2684 and 2685 dated 26 May 2015 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the third respondent for consideration by a Commissioner other than the second respondent.