Automated Summary
Key Facts
Ms Ramsupathy was dismissed by Clicks Stores Hayfield for allegedly stealing cosmetics. She referred the dispute to the CCMA, but conciliation failed. The arbitration hearing was postponed, and Clicks did not receive proper notice of the reconvened hearing. An award was rendered in her favor on 28 February 2000, which Clicks sought to rescind. The court rescinded the order on 9 August 2000, allowing Clicks to file an opposition within one month. The case centered on whether Clicks had notice of the arbitration and whether their dismissal was justified.
Issues
- The court assessed whether Clicks Stores could demonstrate a reasonable explanation for their failure to oppose the s 158(1)(c) application, whether their conduct constituted wilful default or gross negligence, and whether they had a bona fide defense to the unfair dismissal claim, including the validity of their rescission application for the arbitration award.
- The court considered rescinding its 28 February 2000 order that made the arbitration award an order of court, based on Clicks' procedural failures and the need to allow them to oppose the application within a month.
- A key issue was whether Clicks Stores were adequately informed of the arbitration hearing dates, particularly after the CCMA sent notices to multiple addresses, including a third-party stationery store, leading to confusion and non-attendance by the company.
Holdings
The court rescinds the order made on 28 February 2000, granting Clicks Stores leave to file its notice of opposition and answering affidavit within one month. The court directs the CCMA to consider the rescission application under s 144 of the Labour Relations Act with urgency and declines to make a cost order, finding Clicks' explanation for non-opposition reasonable but acknowledging its weaker justification for not opposing the s 158(1)(c) application.
Remedies
- The court rescinded the order granted on 28 February 2000 which had made the CCMA award an order of court.
- The court directed that there would be no order for costs in this matter.
- The respondent was given leave to file its notice of opposition and answering affidavit within one month from the date of this order.
Legal Principles
- The judgment considered whether Clicks' conduct in failing to oppose the application amounted to a breach of natural justice principles, particularly regarding notice and procedural fairness in the arbitration process.
- The court emphasized that Clicks must demonstrate a reasonable explanation for its failure to oppose the s 158(1)(c) application, that its conduct was not wilful or grossly negligent, and that it has a bona fide defense to the alleged unfair dismissal.
Cited Statute
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Judge Name
A A Landman
Passage Text
- In the premises the order granted by this court on 28 February 2000 is rescinded and the respondent is given leave to file its notice of opposition and answering affidavit within one month from the date of this order.
- To succeed Clicks must give a reasonable explanation for its failure to oppose the application. The explanation must be a bona fide one and Clicks' conduct must not amount to wilful default or grossly negligent conduct. Lastly Clicks must show that it has a bona fide defence to the application. This means that Clicks will have to show that its application to rescind the award has merit ie that it did not have notice of the date of the arbitration and that it can justify its dismissal of Ms Ramsupathy.
- I am satisfied that Clicks did not receive proper notice of the reconvened arbitration hearing and that it has a prima facie defence to the alleged unfair dismissal. Clicks' case is weaker when it comes to its explanation for its failure to oppose the s 158(1)(c) application. It was sent two notices. It received both although I am bound to accept that the one envelope contained only the award. This is a borderline case and Clicks should be given the opportunity of opposing the matter.