Fidelity Springbok Securit Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1275/01) [2006] ZALCJHB 6 (7 March 2006)

Fidelity Springbok Securit Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1275/01) [2006] ZALCJHB 6 (7 March 2006)

The court found that the arbitrator applied his mind to the evidence, conducted an inspection in loco, and reasonably concluded that the alleged misconduct was not proven on a balance of probabilities. The damage to property was minimal, and there was no evidence of violent or threatening behaviour by the third respondent sufficient to justify dismissal. The arbitrator's reasoning was rational and defensible, and no gross irregularity or irrationality was established. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ZALCJHB 6
Parties
Applicant: Fidelity Springbok Securit Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Cronje NO; Respondent: Webisi Telford
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2006
Case Number
JR1275/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Strike Action, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Strike Action Disciplinary Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Springbok Securit Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Cronje NO

Respondent

Webisi Telford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent was vitiated by gross irregularity or irrationality.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was substantively fair in the context of alleged misconduct during a protected strike.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedures followed by the applicant complied with statutory and procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator applied his mind to the evidence, conducted an inspection in loco, and reasonably concluded that the alleged misconduct was not proven on a balance of probabilities. The damage to property was minimal, and there was no evidence of violent or threatening behaviour by the third respondent sufficient to justify dismissal. The arbitrator's reasoning was rational and defensible, and no gross irregularity or irrationality was established. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed with costs.