Gloria De Gita v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others

The applicant was employed by the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) as a Project Data Capturer until her dismissal on 19 December 2019 for refusing to follow lawful and reasonable instructions and gross negligence. She challenged the dismissal at the CCMA. The commissioner found the dismissal unfair and awarded her three months' compensation (R87,909.00) but refused to reinstate her, finding that the trust relationship had deteriorated. The arbitration award was issued on 21 October 2020. After being paid compensation, the applicant filed a review application on 6 April 2021, more than three months late (the deadline was 2 December 2020). The condonation application itself was only filed on 17 November 2023, with no explanation for this further delay. The applicant claimed she believed she would be reinstated, tried to get HR to take her back, and sought legal assistance from pro bono clinics due to financial constraints.

• Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application
• What factors should be considered when determining whether condonation is in the interests of justice
• The appropriate test and approach to condonation applications in labour law disputes
• Whether the prospects of success in the review application warranted granting condonation

The application for condonation was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

In labour law disputes, condonation for late filing will be refused where: (1) the delay is substantial (more than three months beyond the six-week period for filing reviews); (2) the explanation is so sparse and lacking in detail that it amounts to no explanation at all; (3) there are no or minimal prospects of success in the underlying application; and (4) granting condonation would be highly prejudicial to the other party and undermine the administration of justice. Where an explanation fails to account for key periods of delay and omits material information that would enable the court to assess reasonableness, it cannot satisfy the interests of justice test. The requirement for expedition in employment law disputes, as mandated by the Labour Relations Act, weighs heavily against granting condonation in cases of excessive delay with inadequate explanation.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) When an applicant attempts to provide additional factual information during oral argument that was not contained in the founding affidavit, this is not permissible; (2) While a dispute may be of importance to an applicant, it is equally important to a respondent who must arrange its affairs to deal with the dispute and potential operational impacts; (3) The court acknowledged that the dispute was of 'some importance' to the applicant, recognizing the human dimension of employment disputes even where condonation must be refused; (4) The court noted that failure to apply for condonation with necessary expedition 'undermines the other party's interest in the finality of a judgment and creates unnecessary delays in the administration of justice'; and (5) The court emphasized that 'it can hardly be denied that lengthy, and unnecessary, delays by parties undermine the effective and fair administration of justice.'

This case reinforces the strict approach South African courts take to condonation applications in labour law matters. It emphasizes that: (1) the explanation for delay must be sufficiently detailed to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the applicant's conduct and account for each period of delay; (2) where delay is excessive and the explanation amounts to no explanation, courts need not consider prospects of success; (3) expedition is paramount in employment disputes as required by the Labour Relations Act; (4) parties must apply for condonation without delay once they realize they have not complied with time periods; and (5) the interests of finality and efficient administration of justice weigh heavily against granting condonation where explanations are inadequate. The case demonstrates the Labour Court's unwillingness to condone lengthy delays that prejudice respondents and undermine the expeditious resolution of employment disputes.