Autoparts Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane NO and Others (JR1393/07) [2010] ZALCJHB 9 (14 May 2010)

Autoparts Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane NO and Others (JR1393/07) [2010] ZALCJHB 9 (14 May 2010)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and well reasoned. The evidence before the arbitrator did not support the applicant's contention that the shop stewards instigated the unprotected strike. On the contrary, the shop stewards attempted to persuade workers to return to work and cautioned them...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALCJHB 9
Parties
Applicant: Autoparts Distributors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Raymond Hlongwane N.O.; Respondent: The Dispute Resolution Centre of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council; Respondent: NUMSA obo A Ludidi & 2 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Case Number
JR1393/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed. The arbitration award is made an order of court. Costs are deferred.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Shop Steward Liability, Unprotected Strike, Arbitration Review, Reinstatement, Burden of Proof
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Shop Steward Liability Unprotected Strike Arbitration Review Reinstatement Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autoparts Distributors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Raymond Hlongwane N.O.

Respondent

The Dispute Resolution Centre of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council

Respondent

NUMSA obo A Ludidi & 2 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity in finding the dismissal of the shop stewards substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the shop stewards instigated or incited the unprotected strike action.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider evidence of a breakdown in the employment relationship.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and well reasoned. The evidence before the arbitrator did not support the applicant's contention that the shop stewards instigated the unprotected strike. On the contrary, the shop stewards attempted to persuade workers to return to work and cautioned them about the illegality of their actions. The applicant's grounds of review were essentially grounds of appeal, challenging the correctness of the arbitrator's factual findings rather than demonstrating any reviewable irregularity. There was no evidence of a breakdown in the employment relationship or procedural unfairness regarding subpoenaed witnesses. The arbitrator was entitled...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed. The arbitration award is made an order of court. Costs are deferred.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitrator's award issued on 14 May 2007 under case number MINT 7033 S is dismissed.
  • The arbitrator's award issued on 14 May 2007 under case number MINT 7033 S is made an order of court.