Score Supermarket v Myra Kente (JA11/99) [1999] ZALAC 21 (16 September 1999)

Score Supermarket v Myra Kente (JA11/99) [1999] ZALAC 21 (16 September 1999)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the sequence of referral to a conciliation board and the industrial court, as set out in section 46(9) of the Labour Relations Act, is not strictly mandatory. As long as conciliation occurs before the dispute is determined, the industrial court is entitled and obliged to hear the matter. The court found that the procedural objections raised by the appellant were due to carelessness and did not warrant interference with the proceedings. The compensation awarded to the respondent was deemed fair, considering her inability to secure alternative employment due to the appellant's conduct. The costs order was justified given the appellant's concession of unfair...

Citation
[1999] ZALAC 21
Parties
Appellant: Score Supermarket; Respondent: Myra Kente
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 1999
Case Number
JA11/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Decision on Compensation and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Conradie, Nicholson, Mogoeng
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Compensation Award, Costs Award, Conciliation Procedure, Condonation, Labour Relations Act Interpretation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Compensation Award Costs Award Conciliation Procedure Condonation Labour Relations Act Interpretation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Score Supermarket

Appellant

Myra Kente

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Decision on Compensation and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral of the dispute to the industrial court before the establishment of a conciliation board vitiated the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the statement of case was filed late and condonation was required and/or granted.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded to the respondent was fair and reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the sequence of referral to a conciliation board and the industrial court, as set out in section 46(9) of the Labour Relations Act, is not strictly mandatory. As long as conciliation occurs before the dispute is determined, the industrial court is entitled and obliged to hear the matter. The court found that the procedural objections raised by the appellant were due to carelessness and did not warrant interference with the proceedings. The compensation awarded to the respondent was deemed fair, considering her inability to secure alternative employment due to the appellant's conduct. The costs order was justified given the appellant's concession of unfair...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal against the award of compensation and the order for costs is dismissed with costs.