Du Plessis v Public Protector and Others

The applicant, a former lecturer at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), was dismissed in June 2014 for misconduct involving sexual harassment and intimidation of students. After unsuccessful internal and statutory challenges to his dismissal, including a failed condonation application before the CCMA and subsequent review proceedings in the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Public Protector in 2016. He alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the CCMA commissioner who dismissed his condonation application, based on the commissioner’s association with the same organisation as the chairperson of his disciplinary hearing. The Public Protector declined to investigate the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. After an unsuccessful attempt to review that decision in the High Court, the applicant brought a review application in the Labour Court seeking to set aside the Public Protector’s refusal and consequential relief reinstating him at CPUT.

The review application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The applicant was ordered to pay punitive costs.

The case clarifies the limits of the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, particularly that it has no authority to review decisions of the Public Protector. It reinforces the principle that disputes concerning the conduct of CCMA commissioners must be addressed through mechanisms provided in the Labour Relations Act, and underscores judicial intolerance for repetitive and abusive litigation.