Capacity Outsourcing v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2208/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 198 (21 August 2013)

Capacity Outsourcing v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2208/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 198 (21 August 2013)

The Applicant failed to provide a record of the arbitration proceedings, which is fundamental for the court to assess whether the Commissioner misdirected himself in considering the evidence. The Applicant did not exhaust efforts to obtain or reconstruct the record and relied solely on the First Respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 198
Parties
Applicant: Capacity Outsourcing; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Pitsi Maitsha N.O; Respondent: Tshepo Richard Miles Modikoane
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2013
Case Number
JR2208/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Baloyi
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Record of Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Record of Proceedings Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capacity Outsourcing

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Pitsi Maitsha N.O

Respondent

Tshepo Richard Miles Modikoane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent should be reviewed and set aside due to alleged failure to consider evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's failure to provide a record of the arbitration proceedings is fatal to the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity or material error of law in finding the dismissal unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to provide a record of the arbitration proceedings, which is fundamental for the court to assess whether the Commissioner misdirected himself in considering the evidence. The Applicant did not exhaust efforts to obtain or reconstruct the record and relied solely on the First Respondent's omission to provide audio recordings. The grounds for review were not substantiated by facts demonstrating gross irregularity or unreasonableness. The court determined the application on the basis presented and found that the Applicant did not make a case for the relief sought. Remitting the matter for arbitration de novo would not serve justice under these circumstances. The review...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

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