9: RESCISSION RULING Please draft the analysis and make a ruling based on the submissions of the parties below. DETAILS OF RESCISSION APPLICATION 1.An in limine hearing was held on 10 January 2018 at the offices of the CCMA in Cape Town. The Respondent, Oostenberg Patrols cc, was represented by Mr Casper Geustyn of the employers' organisation, Consolidated Employers' Organisation. The Applicant, Vusumzi Makhaya, was not present at proceedings. After satisfying myself that the Applicant had been properly notified of proceedings I decided to continue in his absence. 2.The Applicant has filed a rescission application in relation to a dismissal ruling issued by Commissioner Gail McEwan on 15 November 2017 after the Applicant had failed to attend an arbitration hearing. The Respondent has opposed the application. 3.The Applicant's written submissions have been considered as well as the written and oral submissions of the Respondent. SUBMISSIONS Applicant's Submissions 4.The Applicant submitted that he did not attend the arbitration hearing on 15 November 2017 because the train was delayed at Langa Station. He also did not have the CCMA's contact details to notify the CCMA of his problem. Thereafter he decided to go home and wait to see if the CCMA will get back to him. He only contacted the CCMA again when he was informed that his case was dismissed due to non-attendance. 5.He stated that he believed he had good prospects of success because his dismissal was unfair after working for four years and the reason for dismissal was not that serious. He further stated that he had family commitments and his prospects of finding work are slim. Respondent's Submissions 6.The Respondent submitted that the arbitration had been set down for 1pm and was of the view that the Applicant, knowing the inefficiency of the train service, should have ensured that he took a train early enough. It also argued that the train provider usually provides a written note as proof of lateness which has not been submitted by the Applicant to support his claim. The Applicant would also have had the set-down notice which contained the contact numbers of the CCMA. The Respondent is of the view that the Applicant's reasons for non-attendance are poor. Furthermore, the Applicant did not even contact the CCMA thereafter to explain his absence and appeared not to be that serious about his case. 7.With regards to the prospects of success, the Respondent is of the view that the Applicant has none, and furthermore, has not submitted sufficient prima facie facts which, if proven, may suggest that he has prospects. The Applicant was charged for gross negligence for leaving a heater on in the guard house. This was a very serious allegation as it was a fire hazard and could have dire consequences. The Applicant was aware of the rule and did not denies the charge. His only defence at the hearing was that the heater did not belong to him, which was irrelevant. The Respondent had conducted a disciplinary hearing where the Applicant was granted the right to state his case. 8.The Respondent lamented that it would be prejudiced if rescission should be granted as it had attended two CCMA hearings where the Applicant had not attended and had incurred wasted time and costs 9. ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS RULING (10 marks) and case laws