Enlightened Security Force (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR283/2012) [2016] ZALCJHB 57 (16 February 2016)

Enlightened Security Force (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR283/2012) [2016] ZALCJHB 57 (16 February 2016)

The applicant failed to prosecute the review application diligently and did not provide substantive arguments challenging the arbitration award. The Commissioner’s findings on both procedural and substantive unfairness were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not challenge the finding of procedural unfairness, and the Commissioner correctly found that the applicant failed to prove the charges leading to the employee’s dismissal. The review application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant on a party and party scale. Punitive costs were not warranted as the employee could have sought a transfer or dismissal of the application to avoid...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 57
Parties
Applicant: Enlightened Security Force (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner D Haupt; Respondent: Romeo Malgas
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Case Number
JR283/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Van As
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Unfairness, Substantive Fairness, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Unfairness Substantive Fairness Costs Award

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

Enlightened Security Force (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner D Haupt

Respondent

Romeo Malgas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the compensation awarded to the employee was excessive.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively and procedurally unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prosecute the review application diligently and did not provide substantive arguments challenging the arbitration award. The Commissioner’s findings on both procedural and substantive unfairness were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not challenge the finding of procedural unfairness, and the Commissioner correctly found that the applicant failed to prove the charges leading to the employee’s dismissal. The review application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant on a party and party scale. Punitive costs were not warranted as the employee could have sought a transfer or dismissal of the application to avoid...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the employee’s costs on a party and party scale.