Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1714/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 50 (26 January 2018)

Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1714/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 50 (26 January 2018)

The court held that the applicant failed to meet the threshold required for review under section 145(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence presented did not establish a probability that the third respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. The reliance on polygraph evidence was misplaced, as it cannot be used as the sole basis for finding guilt without corroborative evidence and expert testimony. The applicant did not provide sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to implicate the third respondent, and alternative possibilities, such as the involvement of the security guard or other employees, were not adequately excluded. Therefore, the arbitration award was reasonable...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 50
Parties
Applicant: Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mr. C.A. Mannde; Respondent: Ndanduleni Leonard Silima
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
JR1714/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
W Hutchinson
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Polygraph Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Polygraph Evidence Review of Arbitration Award

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hillary Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mr. C.A. Mannde

Respondent

Ndanduleni Leonard Silima

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant's claim was reasonable and justified.
  2. 2 Whether polygraph evidence alone is sufficient to establish employee misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant adduced sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to implicate the third respondent in the theft.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to meet the threshold required for review under section 145(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence presented did not establish a probability that the third respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. The reliance on polygraph evidence was misplaced, as it cannot be used as the sole basis for finding guilt without corroborative evidence and expert testimony. The applicant did not provide sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to implicate the third respondent, and alternative possibilities, such as the involvement of the security guard or other employees, were not adequately excluded. Therefore, the arbitration award was reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.