- Basson wanted to overturn a R39,085.50 compensation award for procedural unfairness.
- He explained that his review was late because COVID-19 delayed his ability to consult with his lawyers.
- The Labour Court found his explanation incomplete and dismissed his application.
A former South African Police Service employee has failed in his attempt to secure a larger compensation payout after challenging the amount he was awarded for a procedurally unfair dismissal.
Wilmot Henry Basson approached the Labour Court in Cape Town, asking for a review of an arbitration award that gave him R39,085.50, which was equal to one and a half months’ pay. He argued that the commissioner did not properly use her discretion in deciding what was fair and reasonable.
Before considering that challenge, the court first had to decide whether Basson’s review application, which he filed about two weeks after the legal deadline, should be allowed.
Dispute centred on six-week deadline
Basson received the arbitration award on 28 June 2021, but only started review proceedings on 24 August 2021. He argued that weekends and public holidays should not count when calculating the six weeks, since the Labour Court Rules refer to court days.
Judge SJ Harvey rejected this argument, finding that the Labour Relations Act requires the period to be calculated as six calendar weeks, including weekends and public holidays.
COVID explanation did not cover the full delay
Basson told the court that he contracted COVID-19, was hospitalised from 21 to 28 July 2021, and then had to isolate at home, which prevented him from meeting with his lawyers.
The court accepted that he had been hospitalised, but found that his explanation did not account for the time between receiving the award and his hospital admission. Judge Harvey also said there was no good reason why meetings with his lawyers could not have taken place remotely.
Commissioner had already found procedural unfairness
The arbitration only looked at whether Basson’s dismissal was handled fairly. The commissioner decided in his favour after finding that the disciplinary chairperson had acted unfairly by refusing his request for legal representation.
Basson still went back to court, asking for more money. He said the compensation he was given was not enough. Judge Harvey said Basson’s challenge was really about the amount of compensation, not about any serious mistake in the commissioner’s decision-making.
The judge said being unhappy with a discretionary award is not enough for the court to intervene. The application was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
