Anglo Operations Limited (Kriel Colliery) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 1869/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 321; (2014) 35 ILJ 1520 (LC); [2014] 7 BLLR 719 (LC) (10 December 2013)

Anglo Operations Limited (Kriel Colliery) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 1869/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 321; (2014) 35 ILJ 1520 (LC); [2014] 7 BLLR 719 (LC) (10 December 2013)

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion regarding inconsistent disciplinary action was reasonable, given the evidence that other employees who breached safety rules remained employed and the employer failed to distinguish those cases from Ntsele's. The arbitrator was not obliged to assist the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 321
Parties
Applicant: Anglo Operations Limited (Kriel Colliery); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mashika J N.O.; Respondent: Ntsele G; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Case Number
JR 1869/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Disciplinary Action, Review of Arbitration Award, Duty of Arbitrator, Substantive Fairness, Lay Representation, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Inconsistent Disciplinary Action Review of Arbitration Award Duty of Arbitrator Substantive Fairness Lay Representation Unfair Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglo Operations Limited (Kriel Colliery)

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mashika J N.O.

Respondent

Ntsele G

Respondent

National Union of Mineworkers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by finding the employer had inconsistently applied discipline in dismissing Ntsele.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator was obliged to assist the applicant's lay representative by advising on the need to rebut allegations of inconsistent disciplinary action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion regarding inconsistent disciplinary action was reasonable, given the evidence that other employees who breached safety rules remained employed and the employer failed to distinguish those cases from Ntsele's. The arbitrator was not obliged to assist the applicant's lay representative, as the representative did not indicate unfamiliarity with the process, represented a major corporation with ample resources, and the issue of consistency was repeatedly raised. Intervention by the arbitrator could have been perceived as partial. Therefore, no reviewable irregularity occurred in the conduct of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.