SATAWU obo Mathiso and Others v Pride Bulk Logistics (Pty) Ltd (JS769/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 200 (22 May 2018)

SATAWU obo Mathiso and Others v Pride Bulk Logistics (Pty) Ltd (JS769/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 200 (22 May 2018)

The court found that the delay in referring the unfair dismissal claim was excessive and inadequately explained. By the end of 2016, the applicants were aware of the union's failure to act and should have taken independent steps to prosecute their claim. The applicants' continued reliance on the union was unreasonable, and their explanation for the delay was unacceptable. The principle that condonation may be refused without considering prospects of success where there is a gross failure to comply with rules was applied. Even if the merits were considered, they did not outweigh the weakness of the explanation for the delay. The union's negligence was not automatically attributable to the...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 200
Parties
Applicant: SATAWU obo Mathiso J & 34 Others; Respondent: Pride Bulk Logistics (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2018
Case Number
JS769/15
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Strike, Closed Shop Agreement, Union Negligence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Protected Strike Closed Shop Agreement Union Negligence

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SATAWU obo Mathiso J & 34 Others

Applicant

Pride Bulk Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided an adequate explanation for the excessive delay in referring their unfair dismissal claim to the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the union's negligence in prosecuting the claim can be attributed to the individual applicants for purposes of condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success on the merits outweigh the prejudice caused by the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in referring the unfair dismissal claim was excessive and inadequately explained. By the end of 2016, the applicants were aware of the union's failure to act and should have taken independent steps to prosecute their claim. The applicants' continued reliance on the union was unreasonable, and their explanation for the delay was unacceptable. The principle that condonation may be refused without considering prospects of success where there is a gross failure to comply with rules was applied. Even if the merits were considered, they did not outweigh the weakness of the explanation for the delay. The union's negligence was not automatically attributable to the...

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.