Bomelo v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J5902/00) [2001] ZALC 59 (24 April 2001)

Bomelo v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J5902/00) [2001] ZALC 59 (24 April 2001)

The court found that the arbitrator had considered all relevant evidence and circumstances in reaching the decision to uphold the dismissal. The applicant failed to provide convincing grounds for review, and his approach was incorrect in law, treating the review as a rehearing or appeal. There was no evidence that the arbitrator acted unfairly or refused to allow witnesses. The sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the applicant's prior warning and the seriousness of the misconduct. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 59
Parties
Applicant: David M Bomelo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Phillip Cohen; Respondent: Bouwer Plumbing (Frans Bouwer)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2001
Case Number
J5902/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Substantive Fairness, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Substantive Fairness 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David M Bomelo

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Phillip Cohen

Respondent

Bouwer Plumbing (Frans Bouwer)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award dismissing the applicant for being under the influence of alcohol at work was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing before the arbitrator.
  3. 3 Whether the sanction of dismissal was substantively fair given the applicant's prior warning.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had considered all relevant evidence and circumstances in reaching the decision to uphold the dismissal. The applicant failed to provide convincing grounds for review, and his approach was incorrect in law, treating the review as a rehearing or appeal. There was no evidence that the arbitrator acted unfairly or refused to allow witnesses. The sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the applicant's prior warning and the seriousness of the misconduct. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.