Sithole v Nogwaza and Others (D935/97) [1999] ZALC 114 (27 July 1999)

Sithole v Nogwaza and Others (D935/97) [1999] ZALC 114 (27 July 1999)

The court found that the dispute regarding the employer's repudiation of the verbal agreement to arbitrate arose on 20 November 1996, after the commencement of the Labour Relations Act of 1995. The CCMA was wrong to reject the referral on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, as the dispute qualified as a matter of mutual interest under section 133(1)(a) read with section 134 of the Act. However, the referral to the CCMA was made unreasonably late, with an unexplained delay of eight months after the Department of Labour refused condonation. The Act places a premium on expedition, and the court held that the CCMA was not obliged to accept a dispute referred after such an unreasonable delay....

Citation
[1999] ZALC 114
Parties
Applicant: Phillip Sithole; Respondent: Lungile Nogwaza N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Wardkiss Homecare D.I.Y. Superstores t/a FT Building Supplies (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 1999
Case Number
D935/97
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
de Villiers AJ
Legal Topics
Ccma Jurisdiction, Unreasonable Delay, Mutual Interest Dispute, Arbitration Agreement, Residual Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Ccma Jurisdiction Unreasonable Delay Mutual Interest Dispute Arbitration Agreement Residual Unfair Labour Practice

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Sithole

Applicant

Lungile Nogwaza N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Wardkiss Homecare D.I.Y. Superstores t/a FT Building Supplies (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute regarding the employer's refusal to comply with a verbal agreement to arbitrate the applicant's dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute was referred to the CCMA within a reasonable time after it arose.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute qualified as a residual unfair labour practice or a matter of mutual interest under the Labour Relations Act 1995.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute regarding the employer's repudiation of the verbal agreement to arbitrate arose on 20 November 1996, after the commencement of the Labour Relations Act of 1995. The CCMA was wrong to reject the referral on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, as the dispute qualified as a matter of mutual interest under section 133(1)(a) read with section 134 of the Act. However, the referral to the CCMA was made unreasonably late, with an unexplained delay of eight months after the Department of Labour refused condonation. The Act places a premium on expedition, and the court held that the CCMA was not obliged to accept a dispute referred after such an unreasonable delay....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.