National Union of Mineworkers and Temba Manana v CCMA and Others - LC unreported case no JR2016/2009

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Fans

A Labour Court of South Africa judgment addresses a review application seeking to set aside an arbitration award that found the second applicant’s dismissal fair. The review was filed fifteen court days late beyond a six-week filing deadline from 26 May 2009, with condonation opposed. The court evaluates the union’s explanation for delay, finds the account insufficient in detail, but grants condonation, concluding the delay is not so excessive that prejudice bars consideration. It then outlines background facts on misconduct, disciplinary findings, and mine lockout obligations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Condonation for late filing

Background facts

Employment and appointment

Misconduct charge and disciplinary outcome

Lockout code of practice

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case number: JR2016/2009 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS First Applicant TEMBA MANANA Second Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent MARK HAWYES N.O Second Respondent MIDDELBURG MINE SERVICES (PTY) LTD Third Respondent Heard: 18 January 2013 Delivered: 20 March 2012 Summary: JUDGMENT PRINSLOO AJ Introduction: 2 [1] The Applicants are seeking the review and setting aside of an arbitration award wherein the dismissal of the Second Applicant was found to be fair and his case was dismissed. [2] The review application was to be filed within six weeks from 26 May 2009, which means that it was to be filed by 7 July 2009. The review application was filed on 28 July 2009 and is therefore filed fifteen Court days late and the Applicants sought condonation for the late filing of the review application. The application for condonation is opposed, which opposition was persisted with atthe hearing of this matter. [3] The Third Respondent submitted that the Applicants did not set out proper grounds for condonation in the founding affidavit and that the explanation tendered for the lateness, is not a plausible explanation as no explanation is tendered for the delay between the expiry of the six week period and the date of actual filing. [4] The explanation tendered by the Applicants is that upon receipt of the arbitration award, which I accept was on 26 May 2009, the award was sent to the Witbank regional office for the purpose of review and this was done in accordance with the Union’s rules and procedures. The region delayed the process as the responsible legal officer was not at work and the award was sent to head office on 24 July 2009. The award was received on the same date and a consultation was arranged with the Applicants’ attorney. Consultation took place on 27 July 2009 and the review application was filedon 28 July 2009. [5] It is evident from the application for condonation and the averments made in this respect that the arbitration award was received on 26 May 2009, forwarded to the regional office in Witbank and that the award was only forwarded to the head office on 24 July 2009, 17 days after the six week period lapsed and almost two months after the award was forwarded to the regional office. There is apart from stating that the responsible legal officer was not in the office, absolutely no explanation tendered as to when he or she was not in the office, why no one else attended to the matter in his or her absence and why the award was only forwarded to the head office on 24 July 2009. I would be hesitant to accept that a well-established union, as the First 3 Applicant is, does not have the capacity to deal with matters and is not able to make alternative arrangements in the absence of a single official. [6] I am inclined to agree with the Third Respondent that there is simply no detailed explanation provided for the delay and it was necessary for the Applicants to provide a better explanation. [7] However, the granting of condonation is within the discretion of this Court and Iam of the view that 15 court days is not so excessive that the Second Respondent should be prejudiced to an extent that his application for review isnot considered at all. Condonation is therefore granted for the late filing of the review application. Background facts: [8] The brief history of this matter is as follows: the Third Respondent employed the Second Applicant, Mr Manana, since February 2008 as a sectional engineer. Mr Manana’s appointment was in terms of section 7(4) of the Mine Health and Safety Act No 29 of 1996 (‘the MHSA’) read with Regulation [2.13.3.1](2.13.3.1). In the contract of employment of Mr Manana it was specifically stated that he was responsible to assist the Manager, as appointed in terms of the provisio

FAQs

What was the review application seeking to achieve?

The applicants sought review and the setting aside of an arbitration award that had found the second applicant’s dismissal fair and dismissed his case.

Why was condonation required?

The review application was due within six weeks from 26 May 2009, but it was filed on 28 July 2009, which the court treated as fifteen court days late.

What did the court decide about the lateness?

Condonation was granted because the court considered the delay not so excessive that the second respondent should be prejudiced to the point that the review would not be considered.

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Fans