Duda v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR874/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 254 (23 June 2017)

Duda v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR874/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 254 (23 June 2017)

The court found that the commissioner correctly identified and undertook the inquiry into the charges of misconduct, gross dishonesty, and negligence against the applicant. The commissioner considered all relevant evidence, including the applicant’s own admissions, the testimony of other witnesses, and documentary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 254
Parties
Applicant: Gugu Pride Duda; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Kenny Mosime N.O.; Respondent: SABC SOC Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Case Number
JR874/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Pre Dismissal Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Pre Dismissal Arbitration, Gross Misconduct, Dishonesty, Public Finance Management Act, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Pre Dismissal Arbitration Gross Misconduct Dishonesty Public Finance Management Act Review of Arbitration Award

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gugu Pride Duda

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Kenny Mosime N.O.

Respondent

SABC SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Pre Dismissal Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was unreasonable and susceptible to review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was guilty of gross dishonesty, negligence, and misconduct as found by the commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner correctly identified and undertook the inquiry into the charges of misconduct, gross dishonesty, and negligence against the applicant. The commissioner considered all relevant evidence, including the applicant’s own admissions, the testimony of other witnesses, and documentary evidence. The commissioner’s findings on each charge were supported by the evidentiary material and were reasonable. The applicant failed to establish that the commissioner committed any gross irregularity or that the award was unreasonable. The sanction of dismissal was justified by the gravity of the misconduct, the applicant’s lack of honesty and remorse, and the breakdown of...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.