Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd v Molapo and Others (JR 2061/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 36 (8 February 2013)

Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd v Molapo and Others (JR 2061/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 36 (8 February 2013)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to consider relevant evidence, particularly the existence of a final written warning and the evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between the third respondent and his supervisor. While the dismissal was substantively unfair, reinstatement was impracticable due to the intolerable working relationship. The court substituted the award with compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary, finding that docking the salary was already a form of punishment and that dismissal was too harsh under the circumstances.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 36
Parties
Applicant: Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: S S Molapo; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: John Masondo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2013
Case Number
JR 2061/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Award reviewed and set aside; compensation ordered in lieu of reinstatement.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Compensation, Reinstatement, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Compensation Reinstatement Procedural Fairness Substantive 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

S S Molapo

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

John Masondo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator ignored material and relevant evidence in making the award.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to consider relevant evidence, particularly the existence of a final written warning and the evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between the third respondent and his supervisor. While the dismissal was substantively unfair, reinstatement was impracticable due to the intolerable working relationship. The court substituted the award with compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary, finding that docking the salary was already a form of punishment and that dismissal was too harsh under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Award reviewed and set aside; compensation ordered in lieu of reinstatement.

Orders

  • The award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside and replaced with the order below.
  • The dismissal of the third respondent is procedurally fair but substantively unfair.