South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Sihlali NO and Others (JR 1303/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 237 (13 August 2013)
The review application was filed two months outside the prescribed period set by section 145(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants did not dispute the date of service as 11 March 2011 and failed to provide any explanation for the delay or to seek condonation. In the absence of good cause shown for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 237
- Parties
- Applicant: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union; Applicant: Thomas Moeta; Respondent: Mncediso Sihlali N.O.; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight & Logistics Industry; Respondent: Ullmann Brothers Pty Ltd
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 1303/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- R Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Jurisdictional Requirements
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
South African Transport and Allied Workers Union
Applicant
Thomas Moeta
Applicant
Mncediso Sihlali N.O.
Respondent
National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight & Logistics Industry
Respondent
Ullmann Brothers Pty Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the review application was filed within the prescribed time period under section 145(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
- 2 Whether the applicants provided good cause for the late filing of the review application.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the review application in the absence of condonation for lateness.
Ratio Decidendi
The review application was filed two months outside the prescribed period set by section 145(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The applicants did not dispute the date of service as 11 March 2011 and failed to provide any explanation for the delay or to seek condonation. In the absence of good cause shown for the late filing, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the review application. The application is therefore dismissed without consideration of the merits.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Not reportable
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
IN JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JR 1303/2011
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION First Applicant THOMAS MOETA Second Applicant and MNCEDISO SIHLALI N.O. First Respondent NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE ROAD FREIGHT & LOGISTICS INDUSTRY Second Respondent ULLMANN BROTHERS PTY LTD Third Respondent
Heard: 08 August 2013
Delivered: 13 August 2013
Summary: (No condonation application – application dismissed).
LAGRANGE, J
This is a review in terms of s 145 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (‘the LRA’).
Lateness
The application was filed on 22 June 2011 following the arbitration award which was issued on 2 March 2011. The second applicant, the dismissed employee and member of the first applicant, SATAWU, claims to have received the award on 23 May 2011. However, in the respondent’s answering affidavit, it is pointed out that in fact the first applicant received the award on 11 March 2012, as evidenced by the fax transmission slip appearing in the CCMA record. The applicants do not dispute this and consequently, the date of service was 11 March and not 23 May 2011.
In that case the review application ought to have been filed by 22 April 2011 in terms of s 145(1)(a) of the LRA, which means the review is two months late. Despite not disputing receipt of service on the later date, no explanation if provided for the delay nor why it was originally stated that the award was only received on 23 May 2011. Section 145(1A) of the lRA provides that condonation for the late filing of a review may be granted by the court on good cause shown, but in this case condonation has not been sought nor has any explanation been provided for the late filing of the review.
This court only has jurisdiction to hear a review application under s 145 if good cause is shown for the late filing thereof. The applicants were forewarned of the difficulty when the answering affidavit was received but decided to proceed with the review
application regardless, instead of filing a condonation application which might have demonstrated good cause for their lateness.
In the circumstances, it is not necessary to address the merits of the review application, as it is defective for want of good cause for its lateness being established.
Order
The application is dismissed with costs.
_______________________
R LAGRANGE, J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT: N Hanif of Mitti Attorneys
FIRST RESPONDENT: G Fourie instructed by Glyn Marais Inc.