Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Gammid Trading v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others (JR 2994/12, JR 3146/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 111 (18 March 2016)
The court found that, having considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment that would justify the granting of leave to appeal. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 111
- Parties
- Applicant: Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Gammid Trading; Respondent: National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa; Respondent: Mbongeni Ntuli & 15 Others; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Adv Russel Moletsane N.O.
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 2994/12, JR 3146/12
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review and Counter Review of Arbitration Award.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Matlejoane
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Award Review, Retrospective Reinstatement, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Gammid Trading
Applicant
National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa
Respondent
Mbongeni Ntuli & 15 Others
Respondent
Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council
Respondent
Adv Russel Moletsane N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review and Counter Review of Arbitration Award.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment upholding the counter-review and substituting the arbitration award with retrospective reinstatement.
- 2 Whether another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion on the merits of the review and counter-review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, having considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties, there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment that would justify the granting of leave to appeal. The court therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal and declined to make a further costs order against the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
JOHANNESBURG
Case no: JR 2994/12
JR 3146/12
DATE: 18 MARCH 2016
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
ARGENT STEEL GROUP (PTY) LTD..................................................................................Applicant
t/a GAMMID TRADING
And
NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS..........................................................First Respondent
OF SOUTH AFRICA
MBONGENI NTULI & 15 OTHERS.....................................................................Second Respondent
METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES........................................................Third Respondent
BARGAINING COUNCIL
ADV RUSSEL MOLETSANE N.O.........................................................................Fourth Respondent
Decided : In Chambers
Judgment : 18 March 2016
Summary : Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT-APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MATLEJOANE AJ.
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of this Court handed down on 23 December 2015. In that case this Court was called upon to determine whether or not the arbitration award issued by the fourth respondent under case number MEGA 36451 dated 29 October 2012, should be reviewed and set aside.
[2] In the arbitration award, the fourth respondent had found the dismissal of the second to further respondents to be both substantively and procedurally unfair and awarded them compensation amounting to the equivalent of six month’s remuneration. The award of compensation was a subject of counter-review by second to further respondents.
[3] In its judgment this Court dismissed the applicant’s application to review and set aside the arbitration award and upheld the second to further respondents counter-review by substituting the award with an award of retrospective reinstatement without any loss of benefits.
Grounds for Appeal
[4] The applicant has raised various grounds for appeal in the notice of application for leave to appeal. I do not deem it necessary to repeat those grounds in this judgment.
[5] I have carefully considered the grounds for leave to appeal including my judgment and the submissions made by both parties. I am not persuaded that another Court may come to a different conclusion to the one reached by me in my judgment.
[6] In the circumstances of this case I have decided not to impose a further cost order on the applicants.
Order
[7] In the circumstances I make the following order:
7.1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7.2 There is no order as to costs.
Matlejoane AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court