Himax Security Services CC v Sekhabisa NO and Others (JR2632/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 378 (3 October 2014)

Himax Security Services CC v Sekhabisa NO and Others (JR2632/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 378 (3 October 2014)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and not vitiated by the alleged error regarding the rescission application. The applicant's ignorance of the rescission of the final written warning did not alter the legal position at the time of dismissal; there was no valid final written warning against Mr Nkosi. The review application sought to introduce new evidence, which is not permissible in review proceedings. The later rescission of the ruling setting aside the final written warning did not affect the fact that, at the time of dismissal, no such warning existed. The court held that the arbitration award should be made an order of court and dismissed the review...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 378
Parties
Applicant: Himax Security Services CC; Respondent: Thabo Sekhabisa N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union obo Nkosi
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Case Number
JR2632/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review and Enforcement Applications
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court; reinstatement and costs ordered.
Judges
O Mooki
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Final Written Warning, Reinstatement, Section 158 1 C, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Final Written Warning Reinstatement Section 158 1 C Unfair Dismissal

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Himax Security Services CC

Applicant

Thabo Sekhabisa N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

South African Transport and Allied Workers’ Union obo Nkosi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review and Enforcement Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award was unreasonable due to the handling of the rescission application regarding the final written warning.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of Mr Nkosi was justified in light of the rescission of the final written warning.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be made an order of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and not vitiated by the alleged error regarding the rescission application. The applicant's ignorance of the rescission of the final written warning did not alter the legal position at the time of dismissal; there was no valid final written warning against Mr Nkosi. The review application sought to introduce new evidence, which is not permissible in review proceedings. The later rescission of the ruling setting aside the final written warning did not affect the fact that, at the time of dismissal, no such warning existed. The court held that the arbitration award should be made an order of court and dismissed the review...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court; reinstatement and costs ordered.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.
  • The arbitration award dated 13 September 2011 in case number GAEK 1519-11 is made an order of court.