South Africa: Labour Court Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Labour Court >> 2001 >> [2001] ZALC 176

| Noteup | LawCite

Metz Transport (Pty) Ltd v Furniture Bedding and Upholstery Industry Bargaining Council Greater Northern Regions and Others (J5861/00) [2001] ZALC 176 (17 October 2001)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


JUDGMENT


3


J5861/00-JduP


Sneller Verbatim/JduP

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J5861/00

2001.10.17

In the matter between

METZ BEDDING (PTY) LIMITED Applicant


and


FURNITURE BEDDING & UPHOLSTERY 1st Respondent

INDUSTRY BARGAINING COUNCIL GREATER

NORTHERN REGION


M MASTERS NO 2nd Respondent


KENNEDY NEMASISI 3rd Respondent


BRIGHT LEUTA 4th Respondent

___________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________________________________________________

LANDMAN, J: Two employees who had been dismissed referred a dispute to the CCMA. The employer was wrongly cited and the employees thereafter referred a second dispute to the Commission. The matter came before a Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted an affidavit by the two employees, presumably as an application for condonation, although it did not set out all the matters which should be set out in an application for condonation. A request was made by the employer for permission to deal with that affidavit. This was denied. The Commissioner went on to condone the application for condonation. Thereafter this application for review was launched.

It is quite clear that the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by not allowing the employer an opportunity to deal with the application for condonation, and secondly, the material which served before the Commissioner could not possibly have caused him to decide that there was good cause for condonation.

In the circumstances therefore the ruling is reviewed and set aside and referred back to the first respondent for the matter to be reconsidered before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.



___________________

A A Landman

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa


---ooo0ooo---



3