CCMA Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution highlights the critical need for diligent case progression within the dispute resolution process. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) was established to offer swift and equitable relief, particularly to vulnerable members of society. For individuals who may face challenges navigating formal legal channels, the CCMA provides an accessible and less rigid avenue for justice. Ensuring timely prosecution is essential to uphold the integrity and efficiency of this system.
A Commissioner presiding over a dispute at the CCMA enjoys the power to dismiss a dispute by virtue of Section 138(1) and Section 138(9)(b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (‘LRA’). There are a number of ways in which a Commissioner may halt a dispute from proceeding to finalisation in the CCMA, such as striking a dispute off the roll, or dismissing a dispute in its entirety. It must be born in the mind that should a dispute be struck off the roll, it may be re-enrolled in the event of an Applicant providing a satisfactory explanation to the CCMA – however should a matter be dismissed in its entirety, the only ‘next step’ is to approach the Labour Court for relief, as was the case in South African Airways (SOC) Limited v South African Cabin Crew Association obo Members and Others (JR 604/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 19; (2024) 45 ILJ 887 (LC) (5 January 2024).
Focusing on just the portion applicable to the power of a CCMA Commissioner to dismiss matters due to lack of diligent prosecution, the Court in South African Airways (SOC) Limited v South African Cabin Crew Association obo Members and Others confirmed that a Commissioner is well within his/her power to dismiss a dispute on the grounds of dilatory conduct by a referring party. In this particular case the referring parties were Trade Unions, which delayed the resolution of the referred dispute over a two-year period, between 2021 and 2023, the Respondent, namely South African Airways, subsequently applied for the dispute to be dismissed by the presiding Commissioner as a result the Trade Unions dilatory conduct and ultimate lack of diligent prosecution of the dispute. Whilst the presiding Commissioner found himself to be lacking the power to dismiss the dispute in the absence of the merits, the Labour Court determined that the presiding Commissioner was well within his power to and should have dismissed the dispute.
