Buthelezi and Another v Safety and Security Bargaining Council and Others (JR609/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 9 (22 January 2019)

Buthelezi and Another v Safety and Security Bargaining Council and Others (JR609/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 9 (22 January 2019)

The court found that the arbitrator did not misconceive the nature of the inquiry nor arrive at an unreasonable result. The arbitrator's assessment of the evidence, particularly the corroboration of Harmse's statement by SAPS witnesses and vehicle tracking records, was reasonable. The applicants' version was implausible and lacked corroboration. The arbitrator's decision that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair was upheld, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 9
Parties
Applicant: MJ Buthelezi and 1 Other; Respondent: Safety and Security Bargaining Council; Respondent: F.J. van der Merve N.O.; Respondent: South African Police Services; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Case Number
JR609/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed. Arbitration award upheld.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJ Buthelezi and 1 Other

Applicant

Safety and Security Bargaining Council

Respondent

F.J. van der Merve N.O.

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misconstrued the evidence and disregarded relevant material, resulting in an unreasonable award.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was procedurally and substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider the applicants' version and supporting evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator did not misconceive the nature of the inquiry nor arrive at an unreasonable result. The arbitrator's assessment of the evidence, particularly the corroboration of Harmse's statement by SAPS witnesses and vehicle tracking records, was reasonable. The applicants' version was implausible and lacked corroboration. The arbitrator's decision that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair was upheld, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed. Arbitration award upheld.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.