Coates SA (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D 199/03) [2004] ZALC 9; [2004] 4 BLLR 353 (LC) (12 February 2004)

Coates SA (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D 199/03) [2004] ZALC 9; [2004] 4 BLLR 353 (LC) (12 February 2004)

The Court found that the absence of the arbitration record made it impossible to determine whether the Commissioner’s award was justified or whether the hearing was fair. The evidence presented by the applicant at arbitration established a strong prima facie case against the employee, and an injustice would result...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ZALC 9
Parties
Applicant: Coates SA (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration; Respondent: H Molotsi N.O.; Respondent: SACTWU (on behalf of Magcaba)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
Case Number
D 199/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CCMA to be reheard by a Commissioner other than the second respondent. Costs are awarded against the employee.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Remittal for Rehearing, Gross Irregularity, Fair Hearing, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Remittal for Rehearing Gross Irregularity Fair Hearing Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coates SA (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration

Respondent

H Molotsi N.O.

Respondent

SACTWU (on behalf of Magcaba)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review of the arbitration award can be determined without the record of proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing before a different Commissioner.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be permitted to call witnesses not previously called at arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the absence of the arbitration record made it impossible to determine whether the Commissioner’s award was justified or whether the hearing was fair. The evidence presented by the applicant at arbitration established a strong prima facie case against the employee, and an injustice would result if the matter was not remitted for rehearing. The Court declined to restrict the applicant from calling witnesses not previously called, as arbitration is a dynamic process and such restrictions would unduly fetter the discretion of the rehearing Commissioner. Interim relief was denied as the award was set aside, and the employee’s loss of remuneration should be considered in...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CCMA to be reheard by a Commissioner other than the second respondent. Costs are awarded against the employee.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the CCMA for rehearing before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.