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)
- Citation
- [2010] ZALC 201
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Coetzee
- Case number
- JR 1266/08
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Coetzee
- Case number
- JR 1266/08
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 AndersonCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentCommissioner Matthews Ramotshela
RespondentSylvester Zitha
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Commissioner could make an award in the absence of any evidence.
- 02
Whether the Commissioner failed to guide the parties to present evidence on oath.
- 03
Whether the arbitration award was reasonable in the circumstances.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Labour Court
Judgment
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
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.