A & A Engineering (Pty) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (J484/99) [1999] ZALC 89 (4 June 1999)

A & A Engineering (Pty) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (J484/99) [1999] ZALC 89 (4 June 1999)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to understand and properly consider the evidence and submissions presented by the parties. The arbitrator misconstrued the issues to be decided, made findings not supported by the evidence, and failed to apply his mind to the matter. These errors constituted gross irregularities in the proceedings, depriving the applicant of a proper hearing. As a result, the arbitration award was reviewable and had to be set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 89
Parties
Applicant: A & A Engineering (Pty); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 1999
Case Number
J484/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for fresh arbitration.
Judges
G J Marcus
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Failure to Apply Mind, Constructive Dismissal
Labour Law Administrative Law Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Failure to Apply Mind Constructive Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A & A Engineering (Pty)

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the arbitrator misconceive the issues to be decided in the arbitration?
  2. 2 Did the arbitrator fail to appreciate and properly consider the evidence presented?
  3. 3 Were there gross irregularities in the arbitration proceedings justifying review and setting aside of the award?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to understand and properly consider the evidence and submissions presented by the parties. The arbitrator misconstrued the issues to be decided, made findings not supported by the evidence, and failed to apply his mind to the matter. These errors constituted gross irregularities in the proceedings, depriving the applicant of a proper hearing. As a result, the arbitration award was reviewable and had to be set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for fresh arbitration.

Orders

  • The arbitration award made by the second respondent on 18 November 1998 under case number GA35071 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute between the applicant and the third respondent is referred back to the first respondent for arbitration by a commissioner other than the second respondent.