BIFAWU obo Ratshisusus v CCMA and Others (JR2423/11) [2016] ZALCJHB 442 (29 November 2016)

BIFAWU obo Ratshisusus v CCMA and Others (JR2423/11) [2016] ZALCJHB 442 (29 November 2016)

The court found that the arbitrator had properly applied his mind to the evidence and reached a rational and reasonable conclusion that the applicant's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. The applicant's grounds for review, including allegations of bias, procedural irregularity, and improper prosecution of the disciplinary inquiry, were without merit. The delay in filing the third respondent's answering affidavit was minor, caused no prejudice, and condonation was granted. The arbitrator's award was not open to review as it fell within the range of reasonable decisions a decision-maker could make. Costs were awarded against the applicant in the main application, but...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 442
Parties
Applicant: BIFAWU obo L Ratshisusu; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Lindokuhle Dlamini; Respondent: Innovation Group
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Case Number
JR2423/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs in the main application.
Judges
N Robb
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation, Gross Negligence, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Condonation Gross Negligence Disciplinary Procedure

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

Parties

BIFAWU obo L Ratshisusu

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Lindokuhle Dlamini

Respondent

Innovation Group

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award upholding the applicant's dismissal was reviewable on grounds of irrationality or unreasonableness.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary process and dismissal were procedurally and substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of the third respondent's answering affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had properly applied his mind to the evidence and reached a rational and reasonable conclusion that the applicant's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. The applicant's grounds for review, including allegations of bias, procedural irregularity, and improper prosecution of the disciplinary inquiry, were without merit. The delay in filing the third respondent's answering affidavit was minor, caused no prejudice, and condonation was granted. The arbitrator's award was not open to review as it fell within the range of reasonable decisions a decision-maker could make. Costs were awarded against the applicant in the main application, but...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs in the main application.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the main application, including costs for appearances on 11 July 2014, 16 July 2014, 22 August 2014 and 6 October 2014, but excluding costs for the condonation application heard on 12 July 2013.