Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P428/09) [2010] ZALC 221 (21 September 2010)

Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P428/09) [2010] ZALC 221 (21 September 2010)

The court held that the arbitrator correctly applied section 193(2) of the LRA and was not persuaded by the applicant's evidence that reinstatement was not reasonably practicable. The applicant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay in conceding unfair dismissal and did not establish that changed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 221
Parties
Applicant: Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: M Nduzulwana N O; Respondent: SATAWU obo J Masiba
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2010
Case Number
P428/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The application for review is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Compensation, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Compensation Review of Arbitration Award Costs 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

M Nduzulwana N O

Respondent

SATAWU obo J Masiba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's order for reinstatement of the third respondent was reviewable on the grounds of impracticability under section 193(2)(c) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's costs order against the applicant was reviewable.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in finalising the dispute rendered reinstatement not reasonably practicable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator correctly applied section 193(2) of the LRA and was not persuaded by the applicant's evidence that reinstatement was not reasonably practicable. The applicant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay in conceding unfair dismissal and did not establish that changed operational circumstances rendered reinstatement unfeasible. The arbitrator weighed the interests of both parties and found that compensation alone would not adequately redress the wrong suffered by the third respondent. The court found no basis to review the arbitrator's decision, as it was not one that a reasonable decision maker could not have reached. The costs order was also...

Court Disposition

The application for review is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs.