Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Are CCMA and Bargaining Council Subpoenas Meeting Legal Standards? A Closer Look at Substantive Compliance
and Rekgopetše Pula, Candidate Attorney
Since inception, the issuance of subpoenas by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Bargaining Councils has been wanting for substantive compliance with the requirement of necessity as set out in Rule 37(1) of the rules of the CCMA. These subpoenas have been there for the taking for some time despite the clear provision in Rule 37(1) and (4)(a) that before a commissioner can issue a subpoena, the applicant, in their motivation, must demonstrate that the evidence of the witness they intend to subpoena is not only relevant but necessary.
Both the CCMA and Bargaining Councils have routinely issued subpoenas in instances where applicants have failed to make out a case for necessity in their motivation. This misalignment and confusion largely stems from the provisions of Rule 37(3)(1) and 37(5)(a), which respectively determine that an application for a subpoena must be filed with the Commission at least 14 days before the arbitration, and served on the subpoenaed witness at least seven days prior to the hearing. The procedural requirements of subsections (3)(1) and (5)(a) create a fundamental inconsistency with section 142 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1965, as they compel intending parties to apply for subpoenas before they would have had the opportunity to assess the necessity of a witness’s evidence—something that can only be properly determined after hearing the opposing party’s case.
Once a subpoena is issued, the subpoenaed witness is legally bound to comply unless they formally challenge its validity, either before the Labour Court or within the arbitration proceedings themselves, on the basis that the subpoena constitutes an abuse of process. Failure to comply, even with a substantively defective subpoena, could unfortunately still amount to contempt of the Commission, carrying severe legal consequences for the defaulting witness. This remains the case even where the subpoena does not meet the necessity threshold established in Loots v Jacobs.
Following the Loots v Jacobs judgment, one would have expected the Commission and Bargaining Councils to adopt a more cautious and considered approach when adjudicating subpoena applications. However, the practice of issuing subpoenas that fail to comply with the requirement of necessity persists.
Beyond its findings, the Loots judgment raises critical questions regarding the timing of subpoena applications. The court clarified that section 142 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA“) empowers commissioners to issue subpoenas at any point during arbitration proceedings. Van Niekerk J (as he then was) emphasized that it is inconceivable that a commissioner or an employee could determine which witness’ testimony would be necessary before hearing an employer’s evidence. As a result, subpoenas issued before the commencement of arbitration proceedings are, by default, premature and speculative.
In light of these ongoing challenges, it is imperative that Rule 37(3) and Rule 37(5)(a) be harmonized with section 142 of the LRA and the Loots judgment. Without such alignment, the practice of issuing subpoenas without properly establishing necessity will continue, leading to unnecessary litigation and procedural inefficiencies.
By ensuring that subpoenas are granted only when genuinely warranted, the CCMA and Bargaining Councils can uphold the integrity of arbitration proceedings and prevent the misuse of legal processes to harass or burden employers and their representatives.
Latest News
Tainted treats, spoiled foods and potential dangers…are there any legal safeguards for consumers?
In recent weeks gone by, there have been numerous food poisoning cases reported[1] resulting in serious health issues and, in [...]
It is not only diamonds that are forever – a snapshot of forever and hazardous chemicals
A recent study conducted by the Manchester Metropolitan University revealed that the processes intended to decontaminate noxious liquid landfill waste [...]
Going nowhere fast, proposed amendments to the direct marketing regulations under the CPA published, and your comments are sought!
On October 28, 2024, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic) published draft amendments to the regulations under the [...]
The Collection of Premiums on Behalf of Insurers – A Look at the Impact of The Exemption of Juristic Representatives from Section 13(1)(C) of FAIS
and Khanyisa Tshoba, Candidate Attorney Introduction: In practice the need may arise for an insurer to appoint a third party [...]
The effects of the CPA Amendment Act, 2017
and Elia Chitata - Candidate Attorney With the introduction of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, which [...]
Section 22 – A Springboard into Business Rescue
and Caitlin Steytler – Candidate Attorney In August 2024, Statistics South Africa revealed that 1020 entities filed for liquidation in [...]