Arcelor Mittal SA Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1756/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 295 (11 August 2017)

Arcelor Mittal SA Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1756/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 295 (11 August 2017)

The court found that the commissioner properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. The third respondent's testimony that he was provoked and acted in self-defence was unchallenged, as Lebakeng did not testify. The applicant's witnesses only observed the fight after it had started and could not refute the third respondent's version. The commissioner reasonably concluded that the third respondent attempted to avoid the fight and sought assistance from a senior, but was unsuccessful. Even if the third respondent was engaged in fighting, his actions were justifiable under the circumstances. The sanction of dismissal was not warranted, and the award of...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 295
Parties
Applicant: Arcelor Mittal SA Ltd; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Dida Masenya N.O.; Respondent: Joseph Dikgang Motsamai
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Case Number
JR1756/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness Standard, Fighting in Workplace
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness Standard Fighting in Workplace

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arcelor Mittal SA Ltd

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Dida Masenya N.O.

Respondent

Joseph Dikgang Motsamai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was reasonable and justifiable on the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent for fighting at the workplace was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in his award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. The third respondent's testimony that he was provoked and acted in self-defence was unchallenged, as Lebakeng did not testify. The applicant's witnesses only observed the fight after it had started and could not refute the third respondent's version. The commissioner reasonably concluded that the third respondent attempted to avoid the fight and sought assistance from a senior, but was unsuccessful. Even if the third respondent was engaged in fighting, his actions were justifiable under the circumstances. The sanction of dismissal was not warranted, and the award of...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.