National Association of South Africa obo Masevani & others v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry & others [2026] ZALCJHB 372

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 2 October 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg

Case No: JR747/22

Name of Judge(s): Olivier AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix:

The applicant union’s 47 members, employed by the third respondent in an essential service, embarked on an unprotected strike in defiance of a CCMA essential services ruling, three ultimatums and an interdict of this Court, and were summarily dismissed on 23 July 2020. The union referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the bargaining council on 1 August 2021, some eleven months out of time. On the papers, the commissioner refused condonation on 23 February 2022 for excessive delay, the absence of a reasonable explanation (the delay having been attributed generically to union officials) and the absence of prospects of success.

The union applied under section 145 of the LRA to review the condonation ruling, but launched the review on 12 April 2022, after the six-week period had expired, without applying for condonation of that lateness. The issues were the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the late review and, in any event, the reasonableness of the refusal of condonation.

Summary of Findings:

[15] ‘Before this Court can consider the merits of the review application or the fairness of the third respondent’s, it must address a fatal procedural defect regarding its own jurisdiction.’

[18] ‘The Applicant launched this review application on 12 April 2022. The application is therefore late.’

[19] ‘Critically, the Applicant has failed to file an application for condonation in this Court for the late launching of the review application itself’

[20] ‘Compliance with statutory timeframes in labour disputes is of paramount importance. The LRA explicitly aims to foster prompt and expeditious resolution of labour disputes.’

[21] ‘Where a party acts outside the prescribed time limits, this Court's jurisdiction is not engaged unless and until a formal application for condonation has been made and granted.’

[23] ‘On this ground alone, the review application must fail.’

[25] ‘The court or arbitrator must weigh up factors such as the degree of lateness, the explanation therefore, the prospects of success, and the importance of the case. These factors are interrelated.’

[26] ‘An excessive delay coupled with a non-existent or unacceptable explanation generally precludes the need to evaluate prospects of success.’

[27] ‘Because the Second Respondent determined the matter on paper and affidavits, he was strictly bound by the evidence contained by the affidavits filed by the parties. An applicant seeking condonation must provide a full, reasonable, and tangible explanation for the entire duration of the delay. Shifting blame on to union officials, without a detailed and satisfactory account of what steps the individual employees took to monitor their own matter over nearly a year, does not constitute a reasonable explanation.’

[28] ‘The Applicants' submissions regarding their prospects of success were legally untenable and failed to establish a bona fide case.’

[29] ‘The Applicants' argument that an ultimatum was issued, for which they lacked sufficient time or explanation to reflect on, is entirely unpersuasive. The facts demonstrate that the Applicants' members were not operating in a vacuum. They were bound by an express CCMA essential services directive and a subsequent interdict. Striking in an essential service is strictly prohibited by law, and the complete defiance of three separate return-to-work ultimatums prior to dismissal, coupled with contempt of a court order, fundamentally strips the Applicants of any claim to substantive or procedural fairness.’

[30] ‘The purpose of an ultimatum is to give striking workers a chance to reflect and resume work to avoid termination. The Applicants were afforded three separate opportunities to do so and refused. Any post-dismissal communication cannot retroactively justify the flagrant lawlessness of their conduct.’

[31] ‘Prospects of success cannot be assessed on vague or contradictory assertions. An applicant must set out objective facts that lead a tribunal to conclude that the main case has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding. The Second Respondent was perfectly correct to find that the Applicants failed to demonstrate prospects of success.’

[32] ‘Combined with the absence of a tangible reason for the 11 month delay, the Second Respondent's decision to refuse condonation was altogether reasonable and correct.’

[33] ‘As a result of no condonation application was filed alongside the late review application at this Court, this Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter.’

[34] ‘Furthermore, the underlying application at the first respondent was fundamentally defective due to an unexcused delay and a total failure to outline prospects of success in an environment heavily restricted by the consequences of an unprotected strike.’

[35] ‘Consequently, the review application cannot be sustained and must be dismissed.’

[36] ‘Regarding costs, in terms of section 162 of the LRA, I consider the requirements of law and fairness. I can find no substantive reasons to award costs in favour of the third respondent.’

Relief: The review application was dismissed, the Court holding that it lacked jurisdiction absent an application for condonation for the late review and that, in any event, the refusal of condonation was reasonable. No order as to costs was made.

Judgment on SAFLII