Greater Taung Local Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Sutherland JA, Coppin JA and Kathree-Setiloane AJA |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 JDR 2635 (LAC) |
| Hearing Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | JA113/21 |
| Court | Labour Appeal Court |
Kathree-Setiloane AJA:
Introduction
The Greater Taung Local Municipality (appellant) appeals against the whole of the judgment and order of the Labour Court (Mosime AJ) in which it inter alia made an arbitration award an order of court.
The appeal has, however, lapsed and the appellant has applied for condonation for its late filing of the appeal record and, reinstatement of the appeal. Both applications are unopposed.
The appeal lapsed because the appellant filed the appeal record 50 days outside the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of the Labour Court’s order granting it leave to appeal. [1] The appellant’s explanation for the delay is that the service provider, Urgent Court Records, was unable to finalise the record on time as it was awaiting missing portions of the transcript of evidence from the first respondent, the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (Bargaining Council). The appellant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay which covers the full period of the delay. As will become clear, the appellant has good prospects of the appeal succeeding. Accordingly, the late filing of the appeal record is to be condoned and the appeal reinstated on the
2023 JDR 2635 p3
Kathree-Setiloane AJA
Background
The second respondent, Mr Sebitloane (employee), was employed by the appellant. He was charged with gross insubordination and unbecoming behaviour for taking unauthorised leave, despite facing a similar charge of misconduct in the same year. He was found guilty and was dismissed by the appellant on 18 April 2017.
He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Bargaining Council. The third respondent (arbitrator) issued an arbitration award in which he found the employee’s dismissal to be substantively unfair and ordered the appellant to, inter alia, retrospectively reinstate the employee.
On 22 June 2018, the appellant instituted a review application against the arbitration award in the Labour Court. The appellant did not file the review record within the prescribed period of 60 days as provided for in paragraph 11.2.2 of the Practice Manual of the Labour Court [2] (Practice Manual). On 14 February 2019, the second respondent, IMATU, acting on behalf of the employee, brought a Rule 11 application in which it sought an order dismissing the review application. It also brought an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act [3] (LRA) to make the arbitration award an order of court.
On 6 February 2019, the appellant filed its notice to oppose the Rule 11 application. It thereafter filed its answering affidavit some seven months out of time but failed to make a substantive application for condonation. IMATU objected to the late filing of the answering affidavit without a condonation application. The Labour Court refused to condone the late filing of the appellant’s answering affidavit. As a result, IMATU’s Rule 11 application remained unopposed.
2023 JDR 2635 p4
Kathree-Setiloane AJA
Judgment of the Labour Court
The Labour Court addressed the appellant’s delay in filing the review record within the prescribed period as provided for in paragraph 11. 2.2 of the Practice Manual. It observed that by the time IMATU lodged its Rule 11 application for the dismissal of the appellant’s review application, the appellant had made no attempt to reinstate the review application and seek condonation for the late filing of the review record. Having considered paragraph 11 of the Practice Manual, the Labour...
To continue reading
Request your trial