G4 Security Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Edwards NO and Others (C 942/2008) [2011] ZALCCT 48 (24 March 2011)

G4 Security Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Edwards NO and Others (C 942/2008) [2011] ZALCCT 48 (24 March 2011)

The court found that the arbitrator's finding of inconsistency in disciplinary action was based on evidence not present in the record, specifically regarding whether Mr Orris was still employed or had been dismissed. There was no evidence supporting either position, and the arbitrator's conclusion was therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement despite the employee only requesting compensation, which was not justified by the evidence or the relief sought. As a result, the award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before a different commissioner, as the relevant issues were not properly ventilated at the...

Citation
[2011] ZALCCT 48
Parties
Applicant: G4 Security Services SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner Eldridge Edwards N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Lucien Craig Wyngaard
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2011
Case Number
C 942/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dispute is referred back to the CCMA for fresh arbitration before another commissioner.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Consistency of Disciplinary Action, Remittal to Ccma
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Consistency of Disciplinary Action Remittal to Ccma

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

G4 Security Services SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner Eldridge Edwards N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Lucien Craig Wyngaard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by relying on evidence not before him.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by ordering reinstatement when the employee only requested compensation.
  3. 3 Whether the finding of inconsistency in disciplinary action was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's finding of inconsistency in disciplinary action was based on evidence not present in the record, specifically regarding whether Mr Orris was still employed or had been dismissed. There was no evidence supporting either position, and the arbitrator's conclusion was therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement despite the employee only requesting compensation, which was not justified by the evidence or the relief sought. As a result, the award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before a different commissioner, as the relevant issues were not properly ventilated at the...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dispute is referred back to the CCMA for fresh arbitration before another commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the first respondent under case number WE 11402-08 dated 5 November 2008 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the CCMA for a fresh arbitration before another commissioner.