Civilcon (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo NO and Others (JR991/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 62 (6 February 2017)

Civilcon (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo NO and Others (JR991/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 62 (6 February 2017)

The Court found that the Commissioner failed to apply the reasonable decision maker test and did not properly consider the undisputed evidence that the employee repeatedly refused to comply with a safety rule, despite warnings. The employee's conduct posed a safety risk and he provided no satisfactory explanation for his refusal. The Commissioner's finding of substantive unfairness was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The arbitration award was therefore reviewed and set aside, and substituted with an order that the dismissal was substantively fair.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 62
Parties
Applicant: Civilcon (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Frank Naidoo N.O; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Malefane Jacob Mokati
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2017
Case Number
JR991/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Review and Substitution of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside and substituted with order that dismissal was substantively fair; no order as to costs.
Judges
E. Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Reasonable Decision Maker Test, Substantive Fairness, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Reasonable Decision Maker Test Substantive Fairness Procedural 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Civilcon (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Frank Naidoo N.O

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Malefane Jacob Mokati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Review and Substitution of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner's arbitration award finding the dismissal substantively unfair was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the employee's dismissal for refusing to comply with safety instructions was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner properly considered the evidence and applicable legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Commissioner failed to apply the reasonable decision maker test and did not properly consider the undisputed evidence that the employee repeatedly refused to comply with a safety rule, despite warnings. The employee's conduct posed a safety risk and he provided no satisfactory explanation for his refusal. The Commissioner's finding of substantive unfairness was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The arbitration award was therefore reviewed and set aside, and substituted with an order that the dismissal was substantively fair.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside and substituted with order that dismissal was substantively fair; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award made under case number GATW 3484-15 dated 14 April 2015 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The arbitration award is substituted with an order to the effect that the dismissal of the third respondent was fair.