Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Labour Court

Gage Specialists (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1266/08) [2010] ZALC 201; (2011) 32 ILJ 1361 (LC) (22 December 2010)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Labour Court held that in the absence of any evidence from either the employer or the employee, the Commissioner could not reasonably conclude that a dismissal had occurred or that it was unfair. There was no record of agreement between the parties regarding the fact of dismissal, and the employer failed to present any evidence to substantiate its allegations. The award made by the Commissioner was therefore one that a reasonable Commissioner could not have made. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and the dispute was referred to arbitration before a different Commissioner.

Court disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute referred to arbitration before a different Commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award in case number LP6863/07 dated 16 May 2008 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute between the parties is to be referred to arbitration before a Commissioner other than Second Respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Gage Specialists (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Riki Anderson

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Matthews Ramotshela

Respondent

Sylvester Zitha

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the Commissioner failed to guide the parties to present evidence on oath and that no evidence was presented by either party. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have made any finding regarding the fairness of the dismissal. The applicant contended that the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside as it was unreasonable and not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The respondents did not appear and did not present any argument before the Labour Court.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act

    A Commissioner may conduct the arbitration in a manner considered appropriate to determine the dispute fairly and quickly, but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with minimal legal formalities.

  2. 02

    Section 188(1) of the Labour Relations Act

    A dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for dismissal is a fair reason and that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Labour Court held that in the absence of any evidence from either the employer or the employee, the Commissioner could not reasonably conclude that a dismissal had occurred or that it was unfair. There was no record of agreement between the parties regarding the fact of dismissal, and the employer failed to present any evidence to substantiate its allegations. The award made by the Commissioner was therefore one that a reasonable Commissioner could not have made. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and the dispute was referred to arbitration before a different Commissioner.

Obiter and limits

  • A Commissioner must ensure that the parties are guided to present evidence on oath to establish the facts of the dispute.
  • Reliance solely on documentary evidence without oral testimony may be insufficient to prove the fairness of a dismissal.

Court disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute referred to arbitration before a different Commissioner.

  • The arbitration award in case number LP6863/07 dated 16 May 2008 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute between the parties is to be referred to arbitration before a Commissioner other than Second Respondent.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court

Judgment

[2010] ZALC 201

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN

CASE NO JR 1266/08

In the matter between:

GAGE SPECIALISTS (PTY) LTD ….............................................................Applicant

and

COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

AND

ARBITRATION …....................................................................First Respondent

COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS RAMOTSHELA …....................Second Respondent

SYLVESTER

ZITHA …....................................................................Third Respondent

______________

JUDGMENT

COETZEE AJ:

Introduction

Applicant seeks to have an arbitration award awarding the Employee compensation reviewed and set aside on the basis that no evidence was presented to the Commissioner and that the Commissioner, therefore, could not have made any finding.

The facts

According to the arbitration award, the Commissioner repeatedly advised the Employer representative of a failure to present any oral evidence, especially in the light of the Employee’s denial of the allegations levelled against him.

The Employer stated repeatedly that it was not calling any witnesses to substantiate its allegations of fairness relying upon a bundle of documents it wished to present to the Commissioner.

While the arbitration award is silent on this issue, the Employer contends that its representatives wished to hand up a bundle of documents containing the records of the disciplinary enquiry, but that the Commissioner refused to accept the documentation without the Employer leading any oral evidence.

The Commissioner recorded that the Employee also did not present any evidence.

The Commissioner in the absence of evidence by the Employer and the Employee held the dismissal to be unfair both substantively and procedurally.

Applicant seeks to review the arbitration award on two basis:

9.1 The Commissioner should have guided the parties to present evidence on oath, which he allegedly failed to do.

9.2 The Commissioner could not make any award in the absence of any evidence.

Analysis

A Commissioner may conduct the arbitration in a manner that the Commissioner considers appropriate in order to determine the dispute fairly and quickly, but must deal with the substantial merits of the dispute with a minimum of legal formalities1.

A dismissal is unfair if the Employer fails to prove that the reason for dismissal is a fair reason (in this case relating to conduct) and that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure2.

The Commissioner may, therefore, once it is established that there was a dismissal conclude that the dismissal was unfair if the Employer has failed to lead evidence to prove a fair reason and a fair procedure.

The Employer did not present any evidence that it dismissed the Employee, and if so for what reason.

The Employee also did not give any evidence that he was dismissed.

There is no record of any agreement between the parties that the Employer had dismissed the Employee.

In the absence of any evidence the Commissioner could not conclude the fact of a dismissal.

The award is one that a reasonable Commissioner could not have made.

Order

The arbitration award in case number LP6863/07 dated 16 May 2008 is reviewed and set aside. The dispute between the parties is to be referred to arbitration before a Commissioner other than Second Respondent.

________

A

J COETZEE

ACTING

JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT

DATE OF HEARING: 22 DECEMBER 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 DECEMBER 2010

APPEARANCES:

FOR APPLICANT: RIKI ANDERSON

of Riki Anderson Attorneys

FOR THE RESPONDENT: NO APPEARANCE

1Section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act

2Section 188(1) of the LRA

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Labour Relations Act, Section 138(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Labour Relations Act, Section 188(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.