Arcelormittal South Africa v NUMSA obo Mazibuko and Others (JR 2027/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 127 (30 January 2013)
The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner indicated a misunderstanding between the two locomotive drivers, rather than clear negligence on the part of Mr Mazibuko. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Mazibuko was untruthful or that Mr Tshabalala was more credible. Applying the Sidumo test, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 127
- Parties
- Applicant: Arcelormittal South Africa; Respondent: NUMSA obo P. Mazibuko; Respondent: Metal and Engineerings Bargaining Council (MEIBC); Respondent: Mokgere Masipa N.O.
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 2027/10
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application to review the arbitration award is dismissed.
- Judges
- AC Basson
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Negligence, Reasonableness of Arbitrator Decision, Evidence Evaluation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arcelormittal South Africa
Applicant
NUMSA obo P. Mazibuko
Respondent
Metal and Engineerings Bargaining Council (MEIBC)
Respondent
Mokgere Masipa N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside.
- 2 Whether the misunderstanding between the locomotive drivers was attributable to the negligence of Mr Mazibuko.
- 3 Whether the Commissioner arrived at a reasonable decision based on the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence before the Commissioner indicated a misunderstanding between the two locomotive drivers, rather than clear negligence on the part of Mr Mazibuko. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Mazibuko was untruthful or that Mr Tshabalala was more credible. Applying the Sidumo test, the court held that the Commissioner arrived at a reasonable decision and that the arbitration award should stand. Accordingly, the application to review the award was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application to review the arbitration award is dismissed.
Orders
- The application to review is dismissed.
- There is no order as to cost.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Not reportable
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JR 2027/10
In the matter between:
ARCELORMITTAL SOUTH AFRICA ................................................Applicant
and
NUMSA obo P. MAZIBUKO .................................................First Respondent
METAL AND ENGINEERINGS BARGAINING
COUNCIL (MEIBC) ..........................................................Second Respondent
MOKGERE MASIPA N.O ....................................................Third Respondent
Heard :30 January 2013
Order : 30 January 2013
Summary :
JUDGMENT-REASONS FOR ORDER
AC BASSON, J
[1] This is an application to review and set aside an arbitration award, in terms of which the Commissioner held on the evidence that there was no evidence to show that the cause of the collision that occurred between two locomotive drivers was as a result of a fault attributable to the first respondent, Mr Mazibuko. The evidence before the Commissioner was that when Mr Mazibuko entered an area where Mr Tshabalala already was in, the rule was that he should first ask Mr Tshabalala, who had the right of way, whether he could enter the area.
[2] What does appear from the evidence is that Mr Mazibuko was aware of this rule. He also testified that that is why he asked Mr Tshabalala whether he could enter the area. However, what occurred, Mr Mazibuko said, “I heard Mr Tshabalala say that I should enter slowly, and that is why I did”, according to the evidence, what he did was that he entered the area slowly. Mr Tshabalala, however, according to his evidence said “I told him to wait”.
[3] I have considered the evidence, what was before the Commissioner was that there was a misunderstanding between the two locomotive
drivers. The question is whether or not that misunderstanding could be attributable to the negligence of Mr Mazibuko who got dismissed.
There was nothing before the Commisioner to indicate that Mr Mazibuko was an untruthful witness nor that Mr Tshabalala was a truthful
witness.
[4] I am therefore, on the evidence placed before the Arbitrator, satisfied that in light of the Sidumo1 case, the Commissioner had arrived at a reasonable decision. I am satisfied, therefore, that the award should stand. And in the event, the following order is made:
4.1. The application to review is dismissed.
4.2. There is no order as to cost.
_______________________
AC BASSON J
Judge of the Labour Court
APPEARANCES:
For Applicant : Advocate A A Mphahlele
Instructed by : Snail Attorneys
For Respondent : Advocate A Redding SC
Instructed by :
.
1 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)