Tiger Brands Limited t/a Albany Bakery Germiston v Mvelase and Others (JR2253/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 19 (25 January 2017)
The Court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine the rescission application as it was filed 18 months after the dismissal ruling without an application for condonation. The Commissioner failed to address this jurisdictional requirement, rendering the rescission ruling a nullity. On the merits, the explanations for Mvelase's absence were contradictory and unsupported by admissible evidence. The medical certificate was accepted without proper scrutiny, constituting a reviewable irregularity. Furthermore, Mvelase did not demonstrate good cause or prospects of success, as the procedural unfairness alleged was not substantiated and contradicted by the disciplinary hearing...
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 19
- Parties
- Applicant: Tiger Brands Limited t/a Albany Bakery Germiston; Respondent: Thokozani Mvelase; Respondent: Steven Ntombela N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2017
- Case Number
- JR2253/13
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Rescission Ruling
- Outcome
- The rescission ruling issued by the Second Respondent is reviewed, set aside, and replaced with an order dismissing the rescission application. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- Tlhotlhalemaje
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Filing, Rescission of Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Procedural Fairness, Unfair Dismissal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tiger Brands Limited t/a Albany Bakery Germiston
Applicant
Thokozani Mvelase
Respondent
Steven Ntombela N.O.
Respondent
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Rescission Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to determine the rescission application in the absence of an application for condonation for late filing.
- 2 Whether the rescission application was properly before the CCMA.
- 3 Whether the Commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in accepting the medical certificate and granting rescission.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine the rescission application as it was filed 18 months after the dismissal ruling without an application for condonation. The Commissioner failed to address this jurisdictional requirement, rendering the rescission ruling a nullity. On the merits, the explanations for Mvelase's absence were contradictory and unsupported by admissible evidence. The medical certificate was accepted without proper scrutiny, constituting a reviewable irregularity. Furthermore, Mvelase did not demonstrate good cause or prospects of success, as the procedural unfairness alleged was not substantiated and contradicted by the disciplinary hearing...
Court Disposition
The rescission ruling issued by the Second Respondent is reviewed, set aside, and replaced with an order dismissing the rescission application. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The rescission ruling issued by the Second Respondent is reviewed, set aside, and replaced with an order dismissing the application for rescission of the dismissal ruling issued on 30 January 2012.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment