Labour Court slams ‘urgent’ claims - by Ernest Mabuza THE Labour Court has again slammed senior public sector employees who approach it to challenge suspensions and disciplinary hearings on an urgent basis. The court has said its roll is clogged with urgent applications to interdict disciplinary hearings from taking place, or to have employees’ dismissals declared invalid. It said the employees’ actions amounted to bypassing the dispute resolution processes of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) prescribed in the Labour Relations Act. Last month, the court dismissed with costs an application by a senior manager at the CCMA, who sought an order declaring that his suspension was invalid and constituted an unfair labour practice. On September 1, the CCMA placed its supply chain manager, Sizwe Mayaba, under provisional suspension after receiving an interim forensic audit report in July. The report suggested various irregularities in the procurement of premises for the CCMA to lease in the Western Cape. It implicated Mr Mayaba in some of these irregularities. He challenged his suspension in the Labour Court instead of first approaching the CCMA, as prescribed by the Labour Relations Act. Acting Judge Sean Snyman said the Labour Court was in general not the place to determine whether the suspension of an employee was fair or unfair. He said this task was designated to the CCMA. Judge Snyman said Mr Mayaba had to convince the Labour Court to intervene in his suspension by showing either exceptional circumstances or compelling considerations of urgency, and Mr Mayaba had failed to do so. The court was satisfied that, on the facts before it, Mr Mayaba was suspended fairly, Judge Snyman said. The applicant has not referred a suspension dispute to the CCMA, when the actual challenge of such suspension is firmly founded in fairness, he said. In ordering Mr Mayaba to pay costs, the judge said Mr Mayaba was legally assisted from the outset, and clearly knew he should pursue his dispute at the CCMA. In simple terms, he is asking this court to decide an unfair labour practice instead of the CCMA. Judge Snyman said he aligned himself with the judgment of the Labour Court in 2009, when then Labour Court judge Ellem Francis expressed the same concerns. Judge Francis said that senior employees could afford top lawyers who would approach the Labour Court with fanciful arguments about why it should grant them relief on an urgent basis. An impression is therefore given that some employees are more equal than others, and if they can afford top lawyers and raise fanciful arguments, this court will grant them relief on an urgent basis. Article provided with the kind courtesy of bdlive.co.za
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 05:39:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015