Dana Spicer Axle (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (P 534/06) [2008] ZALC 47 (17 April 2008)

Dana Spicer Axle (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (P 534/06) [2008] ZALC 47 (17 April 2008)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to resolve material factual disputes and did not provide reasons for accepting or rejecting conflicting evidence. The arbitrator neglected to address the credibility and reliability of witnesses and relied on aspects of evidence that were not put to the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZALC 47
Parties
Applicant: Dana Spicer Axle (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Henry Slater; Respondent: Port Elizabeth Justice Centre; Respondent: Anton Johan Schwartz
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Case Number
P 534/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for de novo arbitration before a different arbitrator; no costs order made.
Judges
Cele AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Conflict of Interest, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Conflict of Interest Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dana Spicer Axle (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commissioner Henry Slater

Respondent

Port Elizabeth Justice Centre

Respondent

Anton Johan Schwartz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award failed to resolve material factual disputes and credibility issues.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's case was fully and fairly determined in the arbitration process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to resolve material factual disputes and did not provide reasons for accepting or rejecting conflicting evidence. The arbitrator neglected to address the credibility and reliability of witnesses and relied on aspects of evidence that were not put to the applicant's witnesses for comment. This approach prevented the applicant from having its case fully and fairly determined, amounting to a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was remitted for a de novo arbitration before a different arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for de novo arbitration before a different arbitrator; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 30 October 2006, issued by the second respondent, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the first respondent for a de novo arbitration hearing before an arbitrator other than the second respondent.