South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town >> 2012 >> [2012] ZALCCT 29

| Noteup | LawCite

South African Breweries Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 665/2011) [2012] ZALCCT 29 (25 July 2012)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format



Not reportable

Of interest to other judges

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN

JUDGMENT

Case no: C 665/11

In the matter between:

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LTD

Applicant

and


CCMA

First Respondent

TARIQ JAMODIEN N.O.

Second Respondent

CEDRIC KARSTENS

Third Respondent

Heard: In chambers

Delivered: 25 July 2012

RULING ON LEAVE TO APPEAL

STEENKAMP J

Introduction

  1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against my judgment of 24 May 2012 in which I dismissed its application for review with costs.

The applicable test

  1. It is trite that the applicable test is whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.1 To this is sometimes added the interests of justice.

Evaluation / Analysis

  1. On of the issues addressed in my judgment is the appropriate test on review, especially as regards the role of the commissioner in deciding whether the sanction of dismissal was fair.

  2. Despite the apparently clear articulation of the test by Navsa J in Sidumo2 and the subsequent dictum of the Labour Appeal Court in Wasteman Group v SAMWU & Others3, there still appears to be some confusion about the commissioner’s role in this regard.

  3. In my view, it is in the interests of justice that the Labour Appeal Court should once again provide clear guidance on this aspect of the test on review.

Order

  1. Leave to appeal is granted. Costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.



_______________________

Steenkamp J


Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa





1Karbochem Sasolburg (a division of Sentrachem Ltd) v Kriel (1999) 20 ILJ 2889 (LC) 2890D.

2Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) para [75].

3Unreported, CA 6/2011 (8 March 2011).