CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT
16/00
P VEERASAMY Applicant
versus
ENGEN REFINERY First
Respondent
A P SHANGASE Second Respondent
Decided on : 31 May
2000
JUDGMENT
O’REGAN J:
| [1] | The applicant applied for
direct access to this Court in relation to the conduct of proceedings before a
commissioner of the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, and
in particular, concerning the admissibility of a privately-made tape recording
in
those proceedings. We refuse direct access for the following
reasons. |
| [2] | The applicant, Mr Veerasamy,
had been an employee of the first respondent, Engen Refinery, for more than
twenty years until his dismissal
on 22 September 1997. He was dismissed for
gross misconduct in that he had, contrary to the policy of the first respondent,
solicited
and received car sound equipment from one of the first
respondent’s contractors. The applicant then approached the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) for relief on the grounds
that his dismissal was unfair. The CCMA, after hearing
evidence and argument,
held that his dismissal was not unfair. Dissatisfied with that decision, the
applicant applied to the Labour
Court for relief. The Labour Court dismissed
his application with costs. The applicant then sought to appeal to the Labour
Appeal
Court, but leave was refused and his petition was
dismissed. |
| [3] | Thereafter the applicant
approached this Court for direct access. The only issue raised in this
application is whether the CCMA,
in admitting a tape recording as evidence in
the proceedings before it, infringed the applicant’s constitutional right
to privacy.
The tape recording admitted by the CCMA was of a telephone
conversation between the applicant and the contractor concerning the
supply of
the car sound equipment. The applicant argued that in relying on this evidence
the CCMA infringed his constitutional rights
and that on that basis, the
decision of the CCMA should be set aside and he should either be reinstated in
his employment or the
matter should be referred back to the CCMA for the matter
to be considered afresh. No other relief was sought by the
applicant. |
| [4] | If we disregard completely
the tape recorded evidence, there can nevertheless be no doubt that the
remaining evidence led by the first
respondent in the CCMA established
conclusively that the dismissal of the applicant was not unfair.
|
| [5] | Even if this Court were to
be of the view that the applicant’s constitutional challenge had merit, an
issue upon which we expressly
refrain from comment, there would be no basis to
order either the reinstatement of the applicant or the rehearing of his case
before
the CCMA. In the circumstances, therefore, it is not in the interests of
justice to grant access to this Court directly and we accordingly
refuse the
application. |
Chaskalson P, Langa DP,
Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and
Cameron AJ concur in the judgment
of O’Regan J.
PDF format
RTF format