Jafta v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P378/03) [2006] ZALC 81; [2007] 3 BLLR 209 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2368 (LC) (4 August 2006)

Jafta v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P378/03) [2006] ZALC 81; [2007] 3 BLLR 209 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2368 (LC) (4 August 2006)

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by misapplying the onus of proof and failing to properly assess documentary evidence produced by the applicant. The arbitrator incorrectly placed the burden on the applicant to account for missing stock, when the employer was required to prove both the physical receipt of stock and the applicant's negligence. The Court held that the arbitrator's findings on substantive fairness were unjustifiable, as the evidence did not support a conclusion of gross negligence for all missing items. The procedural fairness findings were upheld. The award was reviewed and set aside, and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 81
Parties
Applicant: Desiree Jafta; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Botha Du Plessis; Respondent: Makro SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2006
Case Number
P378/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside; applicant reinstated with compensation for lost wages and benefits; costs awarded against third respondent.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Gross Negligence, Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Gross Negligence Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desiree Jafta

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Botha Du Plessis

Respondent

Makro SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant was irrational and unjustifiable.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity or misconduct in the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was substantively and procedurally fairly dismissed for gross negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by misapplying the onus of proof and failing to properly assess documentary evidence produced by the applicant. The arbitrator incorrectly placed the burden on the applicant to account for missing stock, when the employer was required to prove both the physical receipt of stock and the applicant's negligence. The Court held that the arbitrator's findings on substantive fairness were unjustifiable, as the evidence did not support a conclusion of gross negligence for all missing items. The procedural fairness findings were upheld. The award was reviewed and set aside, and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated...

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside; applicant reinstated with compensation for lost wages and benefits; costs awarded against third respondent.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the second respondent dated 19 August 2003 in case number EC 3716-02 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The third respondent is ordered to reinstate the applicant to the position which she occupied on dismissal or to one of equal or better ranking with effect from 04 August 2006.