Essau v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1156/2001) [2006] ZALC 119 (16 February 2006)

Essau v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1156/2001) [2006] ZALC 119 (16 February 2006)

The court found that the Commissioner had properly analysed the mutually destructive versions presented by the parties and reasonably preferred the third respondent's account, which was supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony. The applicant's explanations were inconsistent and unconvincing, and his late claim of mistake was not substantiated. The allegation of bias against the chairperson was based on hearsay and lacked specificity. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair was rational and supported by the evidence. The review application was dismissed as the award was not vitiated by irregularity or unreasonableness.

Citation
[2006] ZALC 119
Parties
Applicant: Harry Clement Essau; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Sibongile Khoza; Respondent: South African Post Office Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2006
Case Number
JR1156/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Nel
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Clement Essau

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Sibongile Khoza

Respondent

South African Post Office Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing was partial.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner had properly analysed the mutually destructive versions presented by the parties and reasonably preferred the third respondent's account, which was supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony. The applicant's explanations were inconsistent and unconvincing, and his late claim of mistake was not substantiated. The allegation of bias against the chairperson was based on hearsay and lacked specificity. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair was rational and supported by the evidence. The review application was dismissed as the award was not vitiated by irregularity or unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.