Schetz v Tedelex Trading (Pty) Ltd (J3915/99) [2000] ZALC 49 (23 June 2000)

Schetz v Tedelex Trading (Pty) Ltd (J3915/99) [2000] ZALC 49 (23 June 2000)

The court found that the bargaining council committed a gross irregularity by admitting the employer's letter opposing condonation without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond, thereby violating the audi alteram partem rule. The court held that the applicant's explanation for the late referral was reasonable, as she only became aware of the grounds for unfair dismissal after her retrenchment and upon discovering that other employees with less service remained employed. The applicant acted promptly once she became aware of the relevant facts. The court concluded that good cause for condonation was established and that the refusal to grant condonation should be set aside.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 49
Parties
Applicant: Rhona Schetz; Respondent: Tedelex Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2000
Case Number
J3915/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of Bargaining Council Condonation Refusal
Outcome
Application for review granted; condonation for late referral is granted.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Audi Alteram Partem, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council
Labour Law Condonation of Late Referral Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Audi Alteram Partem Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council

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

Rhona Schetz

Applicant

Tedelex Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of Bargaining Council Condonation Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bargaining council's refusal to grant condonation for late referral of an unfair dismissal dispute was irregular.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to respond to evidence submitted by the employer.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the late referral constituted good cause for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the bargaining council committed a gross irregularity by admitting the employer's letter opposing condonation without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond, thereby violating the audi alteram partem rule. The court held that the applicant's explanation for the late referral was reasonable, as she only became aware of the grounds for unfair dismissal after her retrenchment and upon discovering that other employees with less service remained employed. The applicant acted promptly once she became aware of the relevant facts. The court concluded that good cause for condonation was established and that the refusal to grant condonation should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; condonation for late referral is granted.

Orders

  • The decision of the bargaining council refusing condonation is reviewed and set aside.
  • Condonation for the late referral of the dispute is granted.