Aphane v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2790/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 391 (25 October 2017)

Aphane v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2790/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 391 (25 October 2017)

The court found that the commissioner’s error regarding the physical check on the system was immaterial and did not distort the outcome. The applicant’s absence during the physical search did not render the proceedings unfair, as there is no legal requirement for the employee to be present during such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 391
Parties
Applicant: Fairbridge China Aphane; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: E Maree NO; Respondent: Gijima Technologies People (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Case Number
JR2790/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
P.M. Mosebo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Disciplinary Procedure, Evidence in Arbitration
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Disciplinary Procedure Evidence in Arbitration

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairbridge China Aphane

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

E Maree NO

Respondent

Gijima Technologies People (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity in her reasoning and failed to apply her mind to the facts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's absence during the physical search of the stores affected the fairness of the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence presented at arbitration was improperly admitted or invented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s error regarding the physical check on the system was immaterial and did not distort the outcome. The applicant’s absence during the physical search did not render the proceedings unfair, as there is no legal requirement for the employee to be present during such investigations. The evidence relied upon at arbitration was properly admitted, and the applicant’s reliance on the third respondent’s bundle undermined his own argument. The court concluded that none of the grounds for review were substantiated by the record, and the commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.