Quick Reference
CASE LAW UPDATES
The requirements in review of condonation applications of the CCMA
By Johanette Rheeder - Director JRA Attorneys
Introduction
In this caselaw update, the various legal principles relating to the test for review, res judicata, condonation applications in the CCMA, and the correct calculation of the date of dismissal of an employee were considered in the matter of Kooganasen v CCMA and others [1]. This is also a case in point where the employer was dragged, for years on end, to the CCMA, the LC, LAC and the Constitutional Court in numerous failed applications, without fail or acknowledgment by the employee of the fatality of his case.
The employee was dismissed by the employer in September 2014 already, for misconduct. The matter took its turn in two review applications in the LC and an appeal in the LAC. The employee was reinstated by the LC and the LAC dismissed a petition to appeal. The employer subsequently gave effect to the LC order and reinstated the employee, however, the position of the employee at that stage, was redundant. The parties could not agree on the alternative position to which the employee should be reinstated and all attempts by the employer to reintegrate the employee failed.
The current dispute came before the CCMA Commissioner as a condonation application for the late referral of the dispute to the CCMA. The commissioner dismissed the application and the matter ultimately ended up before the Labour Court (LC) as a review application in terms of section 145 read with 158(1)(g) of the LRA.
History of the matter
The matter has a long history in the LC and the LAC before it ultimately came before the CCMA in the matter under discussion herein. This history deserves some mentioning to give context to the LC judgment. The employee was subsequently retrenched with his final date of employment on 30 June 2018, after various failed attempts to engage him in consultation. An unfair dismissal dispute (retrenchment) was referred to the CCMA on 26 August 2018. In the referral he alleged the date of dismissal to be 31 July 2018.
The employee maintained his central dispute to be that the employer failed to give effect to the erstwhile reinstatement order of the LC. He subsequently applied to the Director of the CCMA for the dispute to be heard by the LC in terms of section 191(6) of the LRA
JANUARY 2023
At the time of arbitration on 20 February 2019 (some 7.5 months post-dismissal), the jurisdiction dispute was still not resolved, and an order was made that the condonation application must first be heard before the section 191(6) application can be submitted to the Director.
The employee eventually submitted a condonation application on 27 February 2019, which was dismissed. In dismissing the condonation application, the commissioner considered the prospects of success, which she found to be slim in the face of the obstructive and un-cooperative nature of the employee’s conduct. She also dealt with the extensive delay and prejudice to the employer.
In the meantime, the employee, in persisting with his argument that the employer failed to reinstate him, brought an ex parte application to the LC for contempt of court order. A rule nisi was granted which was subsequently dismissed [2] with punitive costs. The employee, undeterred by another dismissal of his case, applied for leave to appeal, and petitioned the LAC and the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal, which was eventually dismissed by the Constitutional Court.
After all this, the review case against the condonation ruling eventually came before the LC.
Applying the test for review to condonation applications.
In many a matter, the trite test for review is either misunderstood or still not correctly applied by applicants. In case the employee represented himself and stepped into the trap of missing the legal foundation of his case and getting totally wrapped up in “what he perceived” to be the legal issue at hand, being that he was not reinstated in accordance with the first order of the LC and that the retrenchment was unlawful, and in doing so, did not file his application timeously.
Simply put, the LC confirmed [3] that the court must first consider if there is a failure or error on the part of the arbitrator? Secondly, the court, if such error exists, must consider whether the outcome arrived at by the arbitrator was reasonable based on all the evidence and issues before him/her. Even if the outcome is reasonable for different reasons, then the matter is not reviewable. It is only when the failure or irregularity is the only basis to sustain the outcome that the review would succeed.
Because this was a condonation application that’s on review, a further factor had to be considered [4].
The court found that condonation is an exercise of judicial discretion.
The exercise of the discretion will not be judicial if it is based on incorrect facts or wrong principles of law or where the court of first instance acted capriciously or in a biased manner, or committed a misdirection or an irregularity or exercised its discretion improperly or unfairly.
If none of these grounds are established, it cannot be said that the exercise or discretion was not judicial.
Furthermore, the court found, that where the nature of the discretion is one in the “true sense”, the court should be slow to substitute a decision with that of its own, if the decision is within the range of permissible outcomes [5]. In determining what the permissible outcome of the condonation application is, the Commissioner must apply the principles as set out in Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd [6]. These factors are not individually decisive but are interrelated and must be weighed against each other. For instance, weak prospects may be excused by a good explanation for the lateness or strong prospects may compensate an inadequate delay. A delay must be explained in detail, dealing with each period for the delay and the reasons for it. The court considered the issue of a proper and full explanation for the entire period of the delay (therefore the length and the explanation for it) to be the most critical component to any condonation application [7]. Therefore, the applicant must for instance, not only list the time periods, but also explain why the lapse of time took place between these periods.
Another important consideration, is the prejudice both parties may suffer, which must also be explained with sufficient detail. Only once this is done, can the court make a balanced decision.
Of equal importance are the prospects of success. All that is necessary to consider is whether the applicant would succeed, if the version is correct and true. It should not be proven to be correct, but only on a prima facie basis be established. If the applicant does not explain the delay in sufficient detail, the court found the prospects to become irrelevant.
Lastly, condonation must be applied for as soon as possible or immediately upon the discovery of the failure or when the applicant should reasonably have become aware of the failure to comply with the time period. Even a delay in filing the application, can result in circumstances where the application stand to be dismissed [8].
1 Kooganashen Theo Pillay v CCMA and others, reported case C268/19, heard on 27 July 2022 and delivered on 30 Nov 2022.
2 Pillay v Santam Ltd and another (2020) 41 ILJ 2695 (LC)
3 Ad para [36]
4 See National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) V Metrofile (Pty) Ltd (2021) 42 ILJ 1914 (LAC)
5 Ad para [38] and see also Steenkamp and others v Edcon Ltd (2019) 40 ILJ 1731 CC at para 33
6 1962 (4) SA 531 (A) 532C-E
7 Ad para [44]
8 Ad para [48]
Upcoming Events
Date: 04/11/2024 08:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 08/11/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 11/11/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 22/11/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 25/11/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 29/11/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 02/12/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 06/12/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Date: 09/12/2024 09:00:00
Event Type: Distance Learning
Venue: Office / Home
Title | Description | Published By | |
---|---|---|---|
November 2022 |
Strike Action in South Africa | Elmi Jonker | View |
June 2022 |
TransUnion Data Breach - Information Regulators Dissatisfaction | Sashin Naidoo | View |
July 2022 |
A Zero-Tolerance Policy - How Fair Is That? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
May 2022 |
Cost to not follow suit in labour matters | Johanette Rheeder | View |
April 2022 |
The new code of good practice aimed at eliminating harassment in South African workplaces | Lezanne Taylor | View |
March 2022 |
The new code of good practice aimed at eliminating harassment in South African workplaces | Lezanne Taylor | View |
February 2022 |
A Great acquisition for the Property Industry | Lezanne Taylor | View |
January 2022 |
The Legality Of Mandatory COVID Vaccinations | Lezanne Taylor | View |
Sept 2021 |
Self-Isolation and Employees’ Sick Leave | Sashin Naidoo | View |
August 2021 |
The Cybercrimes Act, Act 19 of 2020. | Johanette Rheeder | View |
July 2021 |
THE CYBERCRIMES ACT, ACT 19 OF 2020. | Johanette Rheeder | View |
June 2021 |
RELEVANCE & INVESTIGATION REPORTS | Dr. J.J. van der Walt | View |
May 2021 |
COVID-19 VACCINE - An operational requirement - still a needle in a haystack? | Gilles Van De Wall & Johanette Rheeder | View |
April 2021/2 |
Encapsulating The Apprehension Of Retirement & Severance Packages | Lezanne Taylor | View |
April 2021/3 |
Guidance Note On Information Officers | Information Regulator (South Africa) | View |
April 2021 |
The legal duty of a bank to protect non-customers from pure economic loss | Ivor Heyman | View |
Mar 2021 |
The Simultaneity of Ubuntu & Law | Lezanne Taylor | View |
Feb 2021/2 |
A Win for Privacy! | Sashin Naaido | View |
Feb 2021 |
Overtime and compressed work weeks | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Jan 2021 |
Differentiation of employment conditions | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Dec 2020 |
STRIKES - CERTIFICATES OF OUTCOME AND MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST | Johanette Rheeder | View |
Nov 2020 |
Can an attorney settle a dispute without the client’s consent? | Ivor Heyyman | View |
Sep 2020 |
POPIA: The Second condition - Processing limitations | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Aug 2020 |
‘I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul’ | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Jul 2020 |
Disaster Management Regulations- 12 July 2020 | Sashin Naaido | View |
Jun 2020 |
Advanced leave a possible solution to the payment of salaried employees | Lezanne Taylor | View |
May 2020/2 |
CHILD MAINTENANCE AND THE IMPACT OF COVID 19 ON A PARTY’S INABILITY TO PAY | Lezanne Taylor | View |
May 2020/1 |
RE-INSTATEMENT OR RE-EMPLOYMENT AFTER UNFAIR DISMISSAL | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Apr 2020/2 |
COVID 19 – SMME Interventions | Sashin Naaido | View |
Apr 2020/1 |
COVID-19 – Salary payments, relief payments and UIF claims during lockdown | Johann Rheeder | View |
Mar 2020 |
Your obligations in a COVID-19 World State of Emergency! | Gilles van de Wall | View |
Feb 2020 |
A tale of two judgments dealing with free speech and hate speech | Ivor Heyman | View |
Jan 2020 |
The development of vicarious liability in Employment Law | Alex Davies | View |
Dec 2019 |
The development of vicarious liability in employment law | Alex Davies | View |
Nov 2019 |
Privacy implementation in South Africa – Quo vadis? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
Oct 2019 |
Prescription of Labour law | Wanya Cloete | View |
Sep 2019 |
Litigation Privilege: when and how can it be waived? | Ivor Heyman | View |
Aug 2019 |
Refusal to accept a demand by an employer a legitimate operational requirements? | Alex Davies | View |
July 2019 |
The Concept of Job Security & Fairness For Employees in Retrenchments | Alex Davies | View |
June 2019 |
Can a union suspend a strike and take it up again? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
May 2019 |
Social Media – Clash between Freedom of Expression & Privacy | Ivor Heyman | View |
April 2019 |
Canabis in the workplace | Wanya Cloete | View |
March 2019 |
GDPR/POPIA – Where Technology and Ethics have reached crossroads | Megan Grindell | View |
February 2019 |
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
Jan 2019 |
Regulations relating to the Protection of Personal Information | Johanette Rheeder | View |
Dec 2018 |
Collection of debt from Employees | Johanette Rheeder | View |
Nov 2018 |
Strikes – certificates of outcome and matters of mutual interest – how far does it stretch? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
October 2018 |
The right to strike – A matter of mutual interest | Johanette Rheeder | View |
July 2018 |
Extension of Collective Agreements | Alex Davies | View |
June 2018 |
GDPR / POPIA – Where Technology & Ethics Have Reached a Crossroad | Megan Grindell | View |
May 2018 |
Exemption Clauses: an assessment of the burden of proof | Ivor Heyman | View |
April 2018 |
Companies that cannot afford the National Minimum Wage | Department Of Labour | View |
March 2018 |
Portfolio Committee on Labour Extended Invitation for Commentary | By SASLAW | View |
February 2018 |
Business Rescue Proceedings – A Brief Overview | Alex Davies | View |
January 2018 |
Collection of debt from employees | Alex Davies | View |
November 2017 |
Publication Of New Bills Which Impact Employment | Alex Davies | View |
September 2017 |
POPI Regulations & the duties of the Information Officer | Johanette Rheeder | View |
August 2017 |
Is a Break in the Trust Relationship, a prerequisite to Dismissal? | Alex Davies | View |
July 2017 |
Temporary Employment Services - NUMSA vs Asign Services | Alex Davies | View |
June 2017 |
Probation and probation related dismissals in the CCMA | Johanette Rheeder | View |
May 2017 |
Job descriptions and extra duties required of an emplyee | Johanette Rheeder | View |
March 2017 |
The extention of collective agreements in the workplace | Alex Davies | View |
January 2017 |
The application of the prescription act to disputes under the labour relations act | Alex Davies | View |
November 2016 |
Who can represent parties at CCMA proceedings? | Yozan Botha | View |
September 2016 |
“Solidarity for Ever” Collective bargaining – rights and duties | Johanette Rheeder | View |
July 2016 |
POPI Implementation on the horizon | Johanette Rheeder | View |
May 2016 |
Applying the rule test in disciplinary hearing | Johanette Rheeder | View |
April 2016 |
Does the managerial prerogative still apply during the recruitment process? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
March 2016 |
The Stigmatising Effect of Medical Testing on Mental Illness | Kellie Hennessy | View |
February 2016 |
Office Romance - A Lesson in managing personal relationships at work | Kellie Hennessy | View |
January 2016 |
Rights for Males to Maternity Leave Benefits | Kellie Hennessy | View |
December 2015 |
Interdicting Disciplinary Hearings | Johanette Rheeder | View |
November 2015 |
The Right to Natural Justice in Disciplinary Hearings | Xander Wehncke | View |
October 2015 |
The Protection of Personal Information Act No 4 of 2013 (“POPI”): Rethink the ‘architechture’ of your business | Kellie Hennessy | View |
September 2015 |
Load Shedding in the Workplace: Negotiate Back the Power | Kellie Hennessy | View |
July 2015 |
Retrenchment - Do We Recognise The Effect? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
June 2015 |
The new CCMA rules - The ultimate relief? | Johanette Rheeder | View |
May 2015 |
Medical Incapacity, Disability and Discrimination | Kellie Hennessy | View |
April 2015 |
Breach of the trust relationship in employment: What to prove and how to prove it | Xander Wehncke | View |
March 2015 |
The exposure of senior employees in terms of Labour Relations Amendment Act 2012 | Johanette Rheeder | View |
February 2015 |
The Correct Approach to a Reviewable ‘Error in Law' | Kellie Hennessy | View |
January 2015 |
E-Cigarettes and the Workplace | Kellie Hennessy | View |
2024 © LabourSmart Training (Pty) Ltd. All Rights Reserved. | Developed and Hosted by Resolve Technology Solutions (Pty) Ltd | SEO by NextG