Kelobetswe v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2554/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 59 (4 March 2020)

Kelobetswe v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2554/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 59 (4 March 2020)

The court held that the arbitrator's decision that the applicant's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair was reasonable. The applicant was notified of his rights and charges, had sufficient time to prepare, and was not denied a fair hearing. The substantive fairness was established on a balance of probabilities, as the applicant's unique access code was used to cancel eight vehicles over two years, and he failed to provide credible evidence that someone else could have accessed his code repeatedly. The court confirmed that the burden of proof in labour matters is lower than in criminal cases, and the fact that the applicant's criminal conviction was overturned did not...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 59
Parties
Applicant: R.M Kelobetswe; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Ms. M. Smith; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: South African Police Service; Respondent: Commissioner of Police
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2020
Case Number
JR2554/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
L Raphulu
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Burden of Proof Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.M Kelobetswe

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Ms. M. Smith

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

South African Police Service

Respondent

Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity in finding the applicant's dismissal procedurally and substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal was procedurally fair under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively fair, considering the evidence and burden of proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator's decision that the applicant's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair was reasonable. The applicant was notified of his rights and charges, had sufficient time to prepare, and was not denied a fair hearing. The substantive fairness was established on a balance of probabilities, as the applicant's unique access code was used to cancel eight vehicles over two years, and he failed to provide credible evidence that someone else could have accessed his code repeatedly. The court confirmed that the burden of proof in labour matters is lower than in criminal cases, and the fact that the applicant's criminal conviction was overturned did not...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

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