Sebibeng Diamond Mine (JV) t/a Frontier Mining Project v NUMSA obo Phekoantoa and Others (C568/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 86 (4 November 2021)

Sebibeng Diamond Mine (JV) t/a Frontier Mining Project v NUMSA obo Phekoantoa and Others (C568/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 86 (4 November 2021)

The court held that the applicant's review was brought under section 145 of the LRA, which only permits review of arbitration awards and not rulings such as condonation decisions. Even if the application was intended to be brought under section 158(1)(g), the applicant failed to provide any submissions or grounds as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 86
Parties
Applicant: Sebibeng Diamond Mine (JV) t/a Frontier Mining Project; Respondent: NUMSA obo Phekoantoa and 164 Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Lerato Segotsane N.O.
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
C568/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
BN Conradie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Review of Ccma Rulings, Section 145 Lra, Section 158 1b Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Review of Ccma Rulings Section 145 Lra Section 158 1b Lra

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sebibeng Diamond Mine (JV) t/a Frontier Mining Project

Applicant

NUMSA obo Phekoantoa and 164 Others

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Lerato Segotsane N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a CCMA condonation ruling may be reviewed under section 145 of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient grounds for review under section 158(1)(g) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to review a condonation ruling before the dispute is finally determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's review was brought under section 145 of the LRA, which only permits review of arbitration awards and not rulings such as condonation decisions. Even if the application was intended to be brought under section 158(1)(g), the applicant failed to provide any submissions or grounds as to why it would be just and equitable to review the condonation ruling before the unfair dismissal dispute was finally determined by the CCMA, as required by section 158(1B). The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind section 158(1B) is to prevent delays caused by piece-meal reviews. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.