Chrome Field Security SA (Pty) Ltd v Ramadimala NO and Others (JR1665/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 194 (29 May 2014)

Chrome Field Security SA (Pty) Ltd v Ramadimala NO and Others (JR1665/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 194 (29 May 2014)

The commissioner’s award was set aside because the decision-making process was materially flawed. The commissioner failed to consider relevant evidence regarding both the timing of the disciplinary hearing and the appointment of the employee as a full-time shop steward. The commissioner did not evaluate the testimony of all witnesses present at the meetings in question and relied on incomplete or misconstrued evidence. These omissions constituted misconduct and a gross irregularity under section 145 of the LRA. The court found that the commissioner’s findings on procedural and substantive unfairness were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. As a result, the award was set aside...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 194
Parties
Applicant: Chrome Field Security SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: J.M Ramadimala N.O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: TAWUSA obo G.A Moraka
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Case Number
JR1665/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside; dispute remitted for fresh determination before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ponelis
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Shop Steward Recognition, Gross Irregularity
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Shop Steward Recognition Gross Irregularity

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chrome Field Security SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

J.M Ramadimala N.O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

TAWUSA obo G.A Moraka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in finding the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary hearing was convened within a reasonable time as required by the employer's code.
  3. 3 Whether the employee was properly appointed as a full-time shop steward and whether instructions to perform guard duties were reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner’s award was set aside because the decision-making process was materially flawed. The commissioner failed to consider relevant evidence regarding both the timing of the disciplinary hearing and the appointment of the employee as a full-time shop steward. The commissioner did not evaluate the testimony of all witnesses present at the meetings in question and relied on incomplete or misconstrued evidence. These omissions constituted misconduct and a gross irregularity under section 145 of the LRA. The court found that the commissioner’s findings on procedural and substantive unfairness were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. As a result, the award was set aside...

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside; dispute remitted for fresh determination before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the first respondent under the second respondent’s case number NWRB980-11, dated 6 June 2011, is set aside.
  • The third respondent’s dispute referral under the aforesaid case number is remitted to the second respondent for determination by a commissioner other than the first respondent.