lydia katjotjo - namibia superior courts court/judgments/labour/katjotjo... · web...
TRANSCRIPT
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
JUDGMENT
Case no: LCA14/2015
In the matter between:
LYDIA KATJOTJO APPELLANTand
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND IMMIGRATION 1st RESPONDENTCHAIRPERSON OF THE PUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA 2nd RESPONDENTOFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER 3rd RESPONDENTCHRISTOFINA MAGGY MBANGO N.O. 4th RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Katjotjo v Ministry of Home Affairs (LCA 14-2015) [2016]
NALCMD 1 (18 January 2016)
Coram: Schimming-Chase AJ
Heard: 24 July 2015
Delivered: 18 January 2016
Flynote: Appeal in terms of section 89 of Act 11 of 2007. Alleged
non-compliance with Rule 5 of Rules Relating to the Conduct of Conciliation and
NOT REPORTABLE
2
Arbitration. The appellant’s union representative signed the Form LC21. The
respondents taking point that Form LC21 not signed by appellant herself and
accordingly a nullity. Form LC21 making clear (and exclusive) provision for
signature by union representative. This was not a joint complaint. Union
representative entitled to represent appellant in terms of section 86(12)(a) of the
Labour Act, No 11 of 2007 read with Rules 5 and 14 of the Rules relating to the
Conduct of Conciliation and Arbitration. In any event, any non-compliance
would not have vitiated the proceedings in the circumstances.
Exhausting local remedies. Respondents alleging that appellant was required to
exhaust her local remedies under the Public Service Act, No 13 of 1995 before
approaching the Labour Commissioner. She apparently failed to do so by failing
to timeously launch her appeal, thus the appellant was deemed dismissed by
operation of law. In the alternative respondents submitted that Form LC21 was
not the appropriate form to refer the dispute and the signing of it vitiated the
proceedings. Applicant’s claim should have been launched in terms of Chapter
5 of Act 11 of 2007, instead of in terms of section 82(7) and 86(1) read with
Rules 11 and 14. The Labour Act specifically includes the State in the definition
of an employer except for the circumstances mentioned in section 2. The
appellant as an employee is entitled to approach the Office of the Labour
Commissioner when she believes she has been dismissed without valid or fair
reason and without following proper procedure. The purpose of the Labour Act
is to resolve labour disputes. Appeal accordingly upheld.
ORDER
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The matter is referred back to the arbitrator for a decision on the merits.
3
JUDGMENT
SCHIMMING-CHASE, AJ
[1] This is an appeal against the ruling made by the arbitrator (the fourth
respondent) in which she upheld two points in limine in favour of the
respondents raised at the outset of arbitration proceedings. This appeal is
against these findings.
[2] The appellant was employed by the first respondent as a Clerk. In April
2009, the appellant was charged with misconduct and a disciplinary hearing was
conducted in terms of the Public Service Act, No 13 of 1995 (“the Public Service
Act”).
[3] The appellant was found guilty for the misconduct for which she was
charged and subsequently dismissed. Thereafter, she noted an appeal against
her dismissal in terms of section 27(14)(a) of the Public Service Act. The appeal
was denied by the first respondent because it was not noted within the time
periods prescribed by the Public Service Act for noting of an appeal. In this
regard, section 26(14)(a) provides that a staff member may within 14 days from
the date of receipt by him or her of the record, statement, reasons and
recommendations in respect of a disciplinary proceeding, appeal in writing to the
Prime Minister against the finding of the disciplinary committee.
[4] It is common cause that the appellant calculated her leave days using
court days as opposed to calendar days, which is the manner in which days are
calculated in terms of the Public Service Act.1 Thus she was four days late in
noting her appeal.
1 Interpretation of Laws Proclamation 37 of 1920; Gouws v Office of the Prime Minister 2011 (2)
NR 428 (LC) at 433
4
[5] It is also common cause that the Public Service Act does not contain any
provisions permitting an appellant in a disciplinary context to apply for
condonation for failure to comply with the time limits prescribed for the noting of
an appeal in terms of the Public Service Act, outside the provisions contained in
section 26(17) which allows the Prime Minister to approve the recommendation
of the Disciplinary committee in the absence of inter alia, a timeous noting of an
appeal.
[6] Subsequent to her failed attempt at appeal in terms of the Public Service
Act, the appellant lodged a dispute of unfair dismissal with the office of the
Labour Commissioner on 15 February 2010. Following arbitration proceedings,
the following award was made in favour of the appellant:
6.1. the appellant’s appeal was found to be properly noted within the
prescribed time period provided for in the Public Service Act;2
6.2. the third respondent was ordered to consider the appellant’s
appeal as he was the only person in terms of Section 5 of the Public
Service Act with the power to dismiss a member from the Public Service;
6.3. the appellant would remain an employee in the public service until
the third respondent had pronounced himself on the appellant’s appeal;
6.4. the appellant would remain entitled to the same terms and
conditions which applied prior to her dismissal.
[7] In spite of the above award, the appellant was not reinstated. Following
an application launched by the appellant in this court during May 2012, she
received two letters from the acting permanent secretary of the first respondent;
one dated 1 October 2012, informing the appellant that she was discharged due
2Mr Jones, counsel for the appellant, correctly conceded that the computation of days in terms of
the Public Service Act was based on calendar days and not court days and that this finding was
incorrect.
5
to misconduct with effect from 24 May 2012, and another letter dated 4 October
2012, stating that the third respondent had ordered that the appellant be
reinstated from 14 January 2010 to 24 May 2012.
[8] The appellant thereafter lodged a dispute of unfair dismissal on 12 March
2013, which culminated in the award that is the subject matter of this appeal.
[9] At the hearing of the arbitration, the respondents took two points in
limine. The first point was that the applicant’s referral was contrary to the
provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Conciliation and
Arbitration before the Labour Commissioner published under GN 262 in GG
4151 of 31 October 2008 (“the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules”) because the
form LC 21 was signed by a NAPWU representative, namely LR Kasera, its
Branch Organiser, and that there was no statement from the appellant herself
authorising the institution of proceedings. As a result there was no referral
because the dispute had not been properly referred, resulting in a nullity. The
second point was that the applicant was deemed to be guilty of misconduct by
operation of law due to the provisions of section 26(14) read with section 26(17)
of the Public Service Act. This point was also couched as a failure on the
appellant’s part to exhaust internal remedies (because her appeal was late), as
well as a waiver on the part of the appellant.
[10] The arbitrator found in favour of the respondents on these two points in
limine. This is the subject matter of the appeal.
[11] The appellant also submitted in her grounds of appeal, that the arbitrator
erred in law in concluding that the effect of the second point in limine, was that
the Office of the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the matter,
and that the arbitrator erred in law in finding that the appellant’s dispute
concerned a violation of Chapter 3 of the Namibian Constitution, which resulted
in the arbitrator suspending the arbitration proceedings in terms of Rule 19 of
the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules. From a consideration of the arbitrator’s
reasons and ruling, she did not make an order suspending the arbitration, and
the ruling on jurisdiction ties in with her ruling on the second point in limine. I will
6
therefore in this judgment only deal with the two points in limine that found
success with the arbitrator.
[12] On these points in limine, the arbitrator followed the reasoning of the
respondents presented by Mr Ndlovu from the Government Attorney, and
presented in this court, which I repeat herein for ease of reference:
12.1. the Form LC21 is a nullity, because it was signed by the
appellant’s union representative and not by her, and this accordingly
vitiates the proceedings entirely;
12.2. alternatively, the appellant is guilty by operation of law because
she did not appeal within the timeframe set out under section 26(14) of
the Public Service Act and is accordingly deemed to have been found
guilty of misconduct in terms of section 26(17) of the Public Service Act
because no valid appeal was noted. She thus failed to exhaust her
internal remedies and cannot now approach the Labour Commissioner’s
office which has no jurisdiction.
[13] Mr Ndlovu also argued at the hearing of the appeal, that in the
alternative, the use of the Form LC21 was not the appropriate form to use for
the referral of a dispute. In this regard, Mr Ndlovu submitted that the appellant’s
case was one of unfair dismissal which should have been dealt with under
Chapter 5 of the Act dealing with unfair labour practices.
[14] Mr Jones appearing for the appellant, argued that the grounds raised on
behalf of the respondents are without merit. He submitted that the form LC21 is
indeed compliant with the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules. He further
submitted that the procedure followed in terms of the Labour Act as well as the
rules was properly followed, and that the appellant was entitled by virtue of the
provisions of the Labour Act, to approach the office of the Labour Commissioner
to remedy a substantively and/or procedurally unfair dismissal.
[15] With regard to the argument that the appellant had not exhausted her
7
internal remedies, Mr Jones submitted that the appellant had indeed exhausted
all remedies and avenues open to her by following the appeal procedure and
that since the State had deemed her to be dismissed as set out in their
correspondence, she had no option but to approach the Labour Commissioner
on the grounds of an unfair dismissal. In the alternative, he argued that in any
event, where domestic remedies were provided for in terms of a statute the
provision must be examined in order to ascertain how far the jurisdiction of the
courts are excluded or deferred.3
[16] I will firstly deal with the issue of the Form LC21.
[17] Rule 14 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules provides as follows:
“14. Referral of dispute to arbitration
(1) A party that wishes to refer a dispute to the Labour
Commissioner for arbitration must do so by delivering a completed –
(a) …
(b) Form LC21, in case of any other dispute (‘the referral
document’ in both cases).
(2) The referring party must –
(a) sign the referral document in accordance with rule 5;
(b) …
(c) …”
(emphasis supplied)
[18] Rule 5 provides as follows:
“5. Signing of documents
3 Swarts v Smuts 1971 (1) SA 819 (A) approved in Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Katjivena (LC
86/2012) [2014] NALCMD 10 (26 February 2014) at page 12.
8
5(1) A document that a party must sign in terms of the Act or
these rules may be signed by the party or by a person entitled in terms of the Act or these rules to represent that party in the proceedings.
5(2) If proceedings are jointly instituted or opposed by more
than one employee, the employees may mandate one of them to
sign documents on their behalf.
5(3) A statement authorising the employee referred to in sub-
rule (2) to sign documents must be signed by each employee
and attached to the referral document or opposition, together
with a legible list of their full names and addresses.”
(emphasis supplied)
[19] Section 86(12) of the Act provides that:
“In any arbitration proceedings a party to a dispute may appear in
person, if the party is an individual, or be represented, only by -
(a) an office bearer or official of that party’s registered trade union or
of a registered employer’s organisation;
(b) if the party is an employee, a co-employee; or
(c) if the party is a juristic person, an employee of that person,
but a person who is a legal practitioner must not appear on behalf of a
party except in the circumstances referred to in (13).”
(emphasis supplied)
[20] Rule 5(1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules was interpreted in the
case of Waterberg Wilderness v Menesia Uses and 27 Others 4 where Van
Niekerk J held that the party referring the matter must sign the referral form
4 Unreported Case No LCA 16/2010 delivered on 20 October 2011.
9
(Form LC 21) and that this this requirement is not a mere technicality.5
[21] The Form LC21 has also been aptly described as “inaccurately
prepared.”6 The form is attached to the Conciliation and Arbitration rules. It is
titled “Referral of Dispute for Conciliation or Arbitration”. It sets out a number of
items which are to be completed and includes the full name of an applicant,
physical address, postal address and other contact details. It requires an
applicant to identify the nature of the dispute with reference to different
possibilities posited on the form. An applicant must also complete an item
setting out the date on which the dispute arose. At the end of the section to be
completed, is a place for signature below which states the following:
“Representative of applicant (print name and sign).”
Adjacent to this, the word “position” appears.7
[22] To my mind, a reading of rules 5 and 14 together with section 86(12)
leads me to the conclusion that ex facie Form LC21, it was properly signed in
terms of the abovementioned rules by the appellant’s representative and at the
correct place. I say this for the following reasons. Firstly, I understand Rule 14
on its own to say that the party must sign the form. But according to Rule 14,
the form must be signed in accordance with Rule 5. Rule 5, on its clear
grammatical interpretation, states that a document that a party (i.e. the
appellant) must sign may be signed by the party, or by a person entitled in terms
of the Act or these rules to represent that party in the proceedings. Thus, I
understand the rule to mean that the form may be signed either by “the party”,
namely the appellant, or by the union representative, who is entitled to represent
the appellant at the proceedings. Section 86(12) makes it clear that only a
5 At paragraphs [10] to [12]6 See Purity Manganese supra at para 227 Whilst I am in respectful agreement with the description of Form LC21 as set out by Smuts J
(as he then was) in paragraph 14 in the Purity Manganese case, I do not interpret the form to
state where the word “position” is located , that this is the place for only the applicant to indicate
his or her position of employment per se. This is ambiguous. It could refer to the position of the
representative at the union or it could be the position of the applicant.
10
union representative has an automatic right to represent a party to a dispute,
thus a union is entitled to represent the party. (Emphasis supplied)
[23] The Form LC21 also only makes provision for the signature of the
representative of the party and not the party herself.
[24] Mr Kasera, the common cause representative of the applicant, and a
member of the appellant’s registered trade union clearly signed as
representative of the applicant and also indicated what his position was. It is
common cause that Mr Kasera represented the appellant.
[25] Even though Van Niekerk J may have had a different interpretation on
the question of a party’s signature in the Waterberg Wilderness case, it was
clear on the facts that that case concerned a joint complaint made by 28
employees of Waterberg Wilderness Lodge. The LC21 specifically stated that
the applicant was one Menesia Uses plus 27 others. At the place for signature
of the “representative of the applicant”, the following was inscribed “Menesia
Uses plus others” and only “M Uses” signed the document. In paragraph 11 of
the Wilderness case, Van Niekerk J also made specific reference to the fact that
the form made provision for signature by the representative of the applicant, but
not for signature by the applicant.
[26] In the Springbok Patrols (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs 8 where the above statement
by Van Niekerk J found approval with Smuts J, there were also 24 claimants
involved in the complaint as opposed to one individual. Only one claimant’s
name was referred to by name on the form. This form was not signed by any
one of the respondents, but by a union representative who purported to
represent the claimants at the arbitration hearing. No attachment was provided
with the names of the other applicants and the applicants formally disputed the
authority of the union representative. This case also clearly dealt with the issue
of joint complaints covered by rule 5(2).
8 (LCA 702/2012) [2013] NALCMD 17 (2013)
11
[27] In Agribank of Namibia v Simana 9 Hoff J also followed this same line of
reasoning.10 However in that case, the legal practitioner signed the Form LC21.
It is clear from section 82(13) of the Act that a legal practitioner does not have
the same right to represent “a party” as a representative of a registered trade
union. Thus, the signature by the legal practitioner was premature resulting in
an invalid or defective referral of a dispute.11
[28] In Purity Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Katjivena 12 Smuts J dealt with a case on
similar facts as the Agribank case, where the LC21 form was not signed by the
employee (referring party) himself or a union representative, but by the legal
practitioner. Conciliation had also already taken place without success. The
point on the failure to properly sign the LC21 was raised at the beginning of the
arbitration proceedings. After having heard argument, the court held13 that the
question arose as to whether the failure to have signed the referral form
constituted a vitiating irregularity resulting in the proceedings being a nullity.
[29] Smuts J specifically dealt with the purpose of arbitration tribunals, namely
that they exist for the resolving of labour disputes as established in terms of
section 85 of the Act with powers under the auspices of the Labour
Commissioner to have jurisdiction and to hear and determine labour disputes,14
and I am in respectful agreement with this principle. It would appear that Smuts
J also took into consideration that the Conciliation and Arbitration rules did not
empower an arbitrator to condone anything more than the failure to comply with
time periods and that in respect of other requirements such as the requirement
to sign a referral form, the arbitrator was not vested with a power of
condonation, which could have very harsh and unjust consequences if a point of
this nature was taken especially on appeal. This was referred to as an omission
on the part of the drafter of the rules. It was pointed out that the usual approach
9 (LCA 32/2013) [2014] NALCMD 5 (17 February 2014)10 Footnote at para 1811 See paragraphs 16, 21 and 2412 (LC 86/2012) [2014] NALCMD 10 (26 February 2014) 13 At para 1114 At para 12
12
of the courts where there has been a causus omissus in a text which does not
cater for an eventuality (such as a power of condonation in respect of non-
compliance with rules not containing time periods), is that a court would
generally refuse to fill a gap which the legislature has created, leaving it to the
legislature to address the issue.15
[30] As regards the provisions of 86(12) it was stated that this section
“… however permits representation by a union or employers’ organisation. But
this subsection refers to representation in arbitration proceedings in the context
of appearances and not in respect of proceeding referrals. Even if an
applicant’s representative on Form LC21 refers to a representative under
section 86(12) (which is by no means clear because of the wording of section
86(12), this does not clear up the massive potential confusion created by the
ineptly drafted form. Instead of facilitating matters, it serves to create confusion
and potential prejudice to unrepresented applicants.”
[31] I am in respectful agreement with the findings of Smuts J, especially with
regard to the immense difficulties in interpretation (especially with regard to the
rights of employees) of ambiguous and, at times perhaps, ill-conceived
provisions of our labour legislation which only serves to frustrate the process of
labour disputes when exactly the opposite was intended.
[32] I must also hasten to add that for purposes of this case that I respectfully
disagree with the interpretation of Rules 14 and 5 read with section 86. It is true
that Rule 14 provides that the party must sign the referral document. But Rule
14 refers to Rule 5, which must also be read with section 8(12). Rule 5 provides
that the document that a party must sign in terms of the Act or the rules, may be signed either by a party or by a person entitled in terms of the Act or the rules to represent the party in the proceedings. The union representative is
accordingly entitled by virtue of the provisions of section 86(12), to represent a
party in the “proceedings” which are arbitration proceedings. There is only one
party in these proceedings. In my opinion there is proper compliance with rule 5
15 At paras 20 and 21 and the authorities collected at footnote 5
13
in this matter.
[33] In any event, it must be noted that the appellant had already lodged a
dispute to the Labour Commissioner and obtained an award in her favour, which
the respondents ignored, resulting in the lodging of a dispute for unfair dismissal
in 2012. Conciliation proceedings were also proceeded with. Respondents had
ample opportunity to raise this point at the outset, and if I am wrong in my
interpretation of the Rules and the Act on this point, I find that the respondents’
participation in the earlier proceedings vitiated any irregularity, following the
reasoning in Purity Manganese.
[34] In the case of Auto Exec CC v Johan van Wyk 16 the court followed Purity
Manganese in holding that the rule giver had not intended that proceedings
would result in nullity where the referral form had not been signed and where the
parties had participated in the proceedings. That is because the participation
amounted to a rectification of the unsigned form. I point out at this stage that in
the Purity Manganese matter, conciliation had taken place and the point was
raised at the commencement of arbitration proceedings.17 In the Autotec matter,
the point was raised after arbitration proceedings.
[35] What is also particularly confusing to me, is that the arbitrator in the body
of her judgment made it clear that she did not agree with the respondents’ point
on the nullity of Form LC 21 for the same reasons mentioned above, yet in her
order, she upheld the point.
[36] I now propose to deal with the second point in limine.
[37] It is apposite to deal with the relevant provisions of the Public Service
Act. Section 26 deals with provisions relating to misconduct and suspension of
staff members. Section 26(14)(a) allows a staff member to appeal inter alia
against a finding of guilt by the disciplinary committee. In terms of this section a
staff member may appeal within 14 days of receipt of the reasons and
16 (LC150/2013) [2014] NALCMD 16 (16 April 2014)17 See paras [7] and [8]
14
recommendation of the disciplinary committee, stating fully the grounds of
appeal.
[38] Section 26(17) provides that:
“If the staff member charged is deemed to have been found guilty or has been
found guilty of misconduct in terms of subsection (4) or (11), respectively and
has not appealed against the finding within the period mentioned in subsection
(14)(a), or has appealed against the finding and the appeal has been dismissed
in whole or in part under subsection (15)
(a) the permanent secretary concerned may approve the recommendation
made by the disciplinary committee in terms of section 12(a)(i) or (ii), or, if the
staff member charged is deemed to have been found guilty, take any action
which he or she could have taken if the disciplinary committee had
recommended it in terms of that subsection;
(b) The Prime Minister may, on the recommendation of the commission,
approve the recommendation made by the disciplinary committee in terms of
section (12)(a)(iii), (iv) or (v), or, if the staff member charged is deemed to have
been found guilty, take any action, on the recommendation of the commission,
which he or she could have taken if the disciplinary have recommended it in
terms of that subsection.”
[39] As I understand Mr Ndlovu’s argument, the appellant’s failure to note an
internal appeal within the time period set out in the Public Service Act resulted in
her being deemed to have failed to exhaust the internal remedies, and she was
therefore precluded from instituting proceedings in the office of the Labour
Commissioner. It also meant that the appellant was guilty by operation of law.
Alternatively, so the argument went, the appellant waived her rights to appeal
because she appeared late.
[40] It is common cause that the appellant did not note her appeal within the
timeframe set out in the Public Service Act due to a miscalculation of the
computation of the applicable dies. The effect was that if one calculated court
15
days, the appellant was in time for noting her appeal, and if one calculated the
calendar days, she was 4 days late. The result, according to Mr Ndlovu, is that,
in the absence of any provisions in the Public Service Act for condonation for
the failure to appeal on time, in terms of section 26(17) of the Public Service Act,
the appellant was deemed to have been found guilty because she had not
appealed against the finding within the requisite period. If I understand Mr
Ndlovu’s argument, the effect of this section is that, even if the appellant had
been involved in a motor accident resulting in her being in a coma for 4 days,
resulting in her filing a notice of appeal late, that would be the end of the matter
for the appellant, and she would have absolutely no recourse to the Labour
Commissioner.
[41] In support of this argument Mr Ndlovu relied on the Gouws case supra.
This case concerned and dealt with the provisions of section 24(5)(a)(i) of the
Public Service Act which states that any staff member who, without the
permission of the Permanent Secretary of the office, ministry or agency in which
he or she is employed, absents him or herself from his or her office of official
duties for any period exceeding 30 days shall be deemed to have been
discharged from the public service on account of misconduct with effect from the
date immediately succeeding his or her last day of attendance at his or her
place of employment. (Emphasis supplied)
[42] The employee in question absented himself without permission for this
period, after which he received a letter of dismissal. There was no disciplinary
hearing. He lodged a complaint with the District Labour Court, and the
complaint was dismissed. This case also dealt with the manner of computation
of the “days” referred to in the Public Service Act. Hoff J held that the days
referred to were calendar days as opposed to court days. In an application for
leave to appeal, a challenge to the constitutionality of the deeming provisions of
s 24(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act was raised, for want of compliance with
Articles 10(1), 12(1)(a) and 18 of the Constitution, and leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court was granted by Hoff J on 5 July 2013 in a judgment delivered in
Gouws v The Office of the Prime Minister 18 . 18 (LCA 31/2005) [2013] NALCMD 23 (5 July 2013).
16
[43] This appeal is still pending. But what is clear is that the Gouws case
dealt with a clear deeming provision of automatic termination without the
necessity of holding a disciplinary hearing in instances where the public servant
absents him or herself for more than 30 days.
[44] This case, again, is on different footing. A disciplinary hearing was
conducted in respect of the appellant. The appellant was found guilty of
misconduct. She noted an appeal which was late, but the provisions of section
26 still allowed the Prime Minister or Permanent Secretary to approve the
recommendations of the committee. Furthermore, the appellant lodged a
complaint with the Labour Commissioner in 2010 already and obtained an
award in her favour in 2012. It is only because the award was ignored by the
respondents that she launched a complaint based on the correspondence she
received reinstating her till 24 May 2012, and then dismissing her on 24 May
2012. Mr Ndlovu’s argument does not assist the respondents in this matter as a
result.
[45] Mr Ndlovu’s argument also loses sight of the provisions of section 2(2) of
the Labour Act which provides as follows:
“(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5), all other sections of this Act apply to all
employers and employees except to members of the-
(a) Namibian Defence Force, unless the Defence Act, 2002 (Act 1 of
2002) provides otherwise;
(b) Namibian Police Force and a municipal police service referred to
in the Police Act 1990 (Act 19 of 1990), unless the Police Act, 1990 (Act
19 of 1990) provides otherwise;
(c) Namibian Central Intelligence Service, unless the Namibia
Central Intelligence Service Act, 1997 (Act 10 of 1997) provides
otherwise; and
(d) Correctional Service Act, 2012 (Act 9 of 2012), the Correctional
17
Service.
(3) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare-
(a) that any provision of a law listed in subsection (5) does not apply
to an employee if-
(i) it relates to the employee's remuneration, or other
conditions of service; and
(ii) it conflicts with this Act; or
(b) that any provision of this Act applies, with such modifications as
may be specified by the Minister in such notice, in relation to an
employee referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) If there is a conflict between a provision of this Act and a provision of a
law listed in subsection (5), in respect of which the Minister has not made a
declaration contemplated in subsection (3)-
(a) the provision of that other law prevails to the extent of the
conflict, if it is more favourable to the employee; or
(b) the provision of this Act prevails to the extent of the conflict, in
any other case.
(5) The laws referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are-
(a) the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1938 (Ordinance 12 of 1938);
(b) the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951 (Act 57 of 1951); or
(c) any law on the employment of persons in the service of the
State.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18
[46] The Public Service Act is a law that “deals with the employment of
persons in the service of the State”. It is also apparent that the Public Service
Act conflicts with the Labour Act to the extent that it is less favourable to the
appellant, insofar as Mr Ndlovu’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the
Public Service Act is concerned. Furthermore, the Minister has not yet declared
that this particular section does not apply to an employee in service of the State.
More importantly, according to subsection 2(4), if there is a conflict between the
provision of the Labour Act and the Public Service Act, if the provision of the
provision of the Public Service Act is less favourable to the employee, it cannot
prevail. Thus, the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act could have been
ignored by the arbitrator for purposes of determining whether or not the
appellant had been correctly, procedurally and substantively fairly dismissed or
not. It was not even necessary in the circumstances for the arbitrator to delve
into the arena of the constitutionality of the Public Service Act or any suspension
of proceedings in terms of rule 19 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Rules,
considering that the point had not even been raised. In light of the foregoing the
second point was clearly without merit, and Mr Jones’ submission that the
arbitrator erred was sound.
[47] I now propose to deal shortly with a further argument addressed by Mr
Ndlovu, namely that the Form LC 21 referral was the incorrect route to follow
because the appellant’s claim lay in chapter 5 of the Labour Act which deals
with unfair labour practices, instead of chapter 8 which deals with prevention
and resolution of disputes. What Mr Ndlovu’s argument fails to properly consider
is that section 51 of the Act provides that if there is a dispute about the non-
compliance with, contravention, application or interpretation of Chapter 5, any
party to the dispute may refer the dispute in writing to the Labour Commissioner.
Section 51(2) provides that the person who refers the dispute must satisfy the
Labour Commissioner that a copy of the notice of a dispute has been served on
all parties to the dispute. Section 51(3) provides that the Labour Commissioner
must then refer the dispute to an arbitrator to resolve the dispute through
arbitration in accordance with Part C of Chapter 8 of the Act. Chapter 5
disputes must also be referred to the Labour Commissioner to deal with Chapter
8. To my mind, this belated argument is also devoid of merit.
19
[48] In light of the foregoing I make the following order:
1. The appeal succeeds.
2. The matter is referred back to the arbitrator for consideration on
the merits.
______________________
SCHIMMING-CHASE
Acting Judge
20
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT Mr Jones
Instructed by Köpplinger Boltman
FOR THE RESPONDENTS Mr M Ndlovu
Instructed by Government Attorney