Slabbert v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J3032/00) [2001] ZALC 111 (26 July 2001)

Slabbert v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J3032/00) [2001] ZALC 111 (26 July 2001)

The court found that there was no evidence of a prior condonation ruling by Commissioner F Ahwirengobeng, other than the applicant's allegation. The second respondent properly considered and ruled on the condonation application, and there was no basis to set aside his finding. The certificate of outcome is not conclusive proof of conciliation and does not prevent the arbitrating commissioner from considering jurisdictional challenges. The second respondent was correct in refusing condonation for the late referral, and the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 111
Parties
Applicant: J J Slabbert; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: S.A. Magwaza; Respondent: Springbok Patrol (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2001
Case Number
J3032/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the second respondent's ruling is refused.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Res Judicata, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Condonation Late Referral Jurisdiction of Ccma Res Judicata Review of Arbitration Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J J Slabbert

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

S.A. Magwaza

Respondent

Springbok Patrol (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's refusal to condone the late referral to conciliation was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the matter was res judicata due to an alleged prior condonation ruling.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrating commissioner was bound to arbitrate the dispute once a certificate had been issued.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence of a prior condonation ruling by Commissioner F Ahwirengobeng, other than the applicant's allegation. The second respondent properly considered and ruled on the condonation application, and there was no basis to set aside his finding. The certificate of outcome is not conclusive proof of conciliation and does not prevent the arbitrating commissioner from considering jurisdictional challenges. The second respondent was correct in refusing condonation for the late referral, and the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of the second respondent's ruling is refused.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the second respondent's ruling refusing condonation for late referral is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.