Crazy Store (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C373/2006) [2008] ZALC 236 (7 May 2008)

Crazy Store (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C373/2006) [2008] ZALC 236 (7 May 2008)

The court found that the arbitrator's refusal to postpone the arbitration was reasonable, given the circumstances and the availability of other witnesses for the employer. The arbitrator did not improperly rely on evidence from a previous rescinded arbitration, as the finding of procedural unfairness was based on evidence led at the hearing, particularly the cross-examination of Ms Benning. The consideration of documentary evidence, such as the letter of commendation, was not improper because it was peripheral to the issue and arbitration is conducted with minimal legal formalities. The employer should have objected during the proceedings if it did not want such documents considered....

Citation
[2008] ZALC 236
Parties
Applicant: The Crazy Store (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Lungile Matshaka; Respondent: Clara Isabella Sophia Swiegers
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2008
Case Number
C373/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Postponement of Arbitration, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Postponement of Arbitration Admissibility of Evidence 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crazy Store (Pty) Limited

Applicant

The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Lungile Matshaka

Respondent

Clara Isabella Sophia Swiegers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's refusal to postpone the arbitration constituted a gross irregularity.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator improperly considered evidence from a previous rescinded arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator considered documentary evidence not properly tendered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's refusal to postpone the arbitration was reasonable, given the circumstances and the availability of other witnesses for the employer. The arbitrator did not improperly rely on evidence from a previous rescinded arbitration, as the finding of procedural unfairness was based on evidence led at the hearing, particularly the cross-examination of Ms Benning. The consideration of documentary evidence, such as the letter of commendation, was not improper because it was peripheral to the issue and arbitration is conducted with minimal legal formalities. The employer should have objected during the proceedings if it did not want such documents considered....

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.