Judge specify mediators role in labour disputes

MONKAGEDI GAOTLHOBOGWE
Correspondent | Friday March 16, 2007 00:00

Katuta had demanded that Matheatau pay him P42,250 in outstanding salary. Ebrahim-Carstens said when the matter was referred to the labour office in November 2006, a default award of P42,250 was made. Over and above this the labour office made a default award of P3,000 and P2500 for recording money and hire charges of music equipment respectively.

'I find that the applicant was to a large extent misguided in this application by those advising him and the default award of the mediator in this case,' said Ebrahim-Carstens.

She added that the mediator went out of his way by awarding recording money and hiring charges, which clearly do not fall within the definition of a trade dispute. 'The mediator clearly had no jurisdiction to entertain these civil claims which would have been better suited for the magistrate's court,' she said. She hit hard at the labour office saying it is evident that the mediator did not even take into consideration that any claim for salary arrears and other entitlements must be made within a reasonable time.

However since Matheatau had conceded that he owed Katuta P6,200, the judge ordered him to pay the guitarist as partial satisfaction of his total claim, if indeed he has any further claim. Matheatau was ordered to have paid the amount by March 30, through the court.

Dismissing Katuta's application for urgent hearing, the judge said he failed to make out a case for urgency upon the grounds relied on. She said if any urgency exists, it is self-created. The judge faulted Katuta for having sat on his rights until the eleventh hour. She told him that he never replied a 24 October 2006 letter from Matheatau, which was a response to his letter of demand of the same month. 'The respondent (Matheatau's) position is clearly evident   from the aforesaid letter, yet applicant took no action, let alone urgent action at this court until February 2007,' said Ebrahim-Carstens.

She dismissed Katuta's reasoning that the case be heard urgently because his visa will soon expire. She said he knew in advance the expiry date of his visa. 'His work permit too was issued and valid for the period 24th September 2003 to 30 September 2006. The applicant sat on his legal rights throughout this entire period. The reason for the delay is unacceptable if not incredulous. The expiry of his papers surely came as no surprise he was the master of his own impending destiny and created his own urgency,' the judge ruled.