Blessing v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1186/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 51 (31 January 2024)

Blessing v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1186/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 51 (31 January 2024)

The court found that the arbitrator considered the principal issue, evaluated the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion that the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant had a history of unauthorised absenteeism, had received both written and final written warnings, and re-offended with similar misconduct. The principles of progressive discipline and the aggravating nature of a final written warning justified the dismissal. The applicant failed to establish any competent grounds for review, and the decision was not one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach under the Sidumo test.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 51
Parties
Applicant: Tembe Blessing; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sunduza Modonsela; Respondent: NAS Colossal Aviation Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Case Number
JR1186/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.
Judges
Schäfer-King
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Progressive Discipline, Unauthorised Absenteeism
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Progressive Discipline Unauthorised Absenteeism

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tembe Blessing

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sunduza Modonsela

Respondent

NAS Colossal Aviation Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant's unfair dismissal claim was reviewable under the Sidumo test.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the presence of a final written warning justified dismissal for repeated absenteeism.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator considered the principal issue, evaluated the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion that the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant had a history of unauthorised absenteeism, had received both written and final written warnings, and re-offended with similar misconduct. The principles of progressive discipline and the aggravating nature of a final written warning justified the dismissal. The applicant failed to establish any competent grounds for review, and the decision was not one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach under the Sidumo test.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.