Bidair Services (PTY) Ltd v Everett N.O. and Others (C613/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 47 (26 July 2022)

Bidair Services (PTY) Ltd v Everett N.O. and Others (C613/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 47 (26 July 2022)

The commissioner unreasonably rejected unchallenged evidence regarding the reliability of the handheld scale and imposed an unduly onerous burden of proof on the employer. The employees did not allege error or miscalculation, and the probabilities of both making substantial mistakes were remote. The evidence established that the employees deliberately entered false baggage weights, and the commissioner’s expectation for further corroboration was unrealistic and not required by law. The award was irrational and unreasonable, and the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively fair.

Citation
[2022] ZALCCT 47
Parties
Applicant: Bidair Services (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Winnie Everett N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: NUMSA obo Sizani & Maqanda
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2022
Case Number
C613/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dismissals of the employees are declared procedurally and substantively fair. No order as to costs.
Judges
Leslie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Burden of Proof, Substantive Fairness, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Burden of Proof Substantive Fairness Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bidair Services (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Winnie Everett N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

NUMSA obo Sizani & Maqanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner unreasonably ignored unchallenged evidence regarding the accuracy of baggage scales.
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof applied by the commissioner was unduly onerous and inconsistent with the civil standard.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals of the employees were substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner unreasonably rejected unchallenged evidence regarding the reliability of the handheld scale and imposed an unduly onerous burden of proof on the employer. The employees did not allege error or miscalculation, and the probabilities of both making substantial mistakes were remote. The evidence established that the employees deliberately entered false baggage weights, and the commissioner’s expectation for further corroboration was unrealistic and not required by law. The award was irrational and unreasonable, and the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively fair.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dismissals of the employees are declared procedurally and substantively fair. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the First Respondent under the Second Respondent’s case number WECT499-19, dated 16 August 2019, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The award is substituted with: 'The Applicants’ dismissals were procedurally and substantively fair.'