Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C814/2016) [2018] ZALCCT 27; (2018) 39 ILJ 2560 (LC) (1 August 2018)

Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C814/2016) [2018] ZALCCT 27; (2018) 39 ILJ 2560 (LC) (1 August 2018)

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the respondents were not dishonest was unreasonable and based on a credulous evaluation of the evidence. The contracts and board resolutions clearly set out the respondents' remuneration entitlements, and the respondents' acceptance of unauthorised payments, including significant increases and bonuses, could not plausibly be regarded as bona fide. The arbitrator's reliance on supposed flaws in the contracts and the Remco report was misplaced, and her admission of extraneous evidence did not justify the latitude afforded to the respondents. The respondents' conduct in approving handwritten amendments and receiving payments...

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 27
Parties
Applicant: Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Winnie Everett (N.O.); Respondent: BG Ncube; Respondent: A Erasmus; Respondent: C Prins
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2018
Case Number
C814/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside, except for the finding of procedural unfairness, which is upheld. The finding of substantive unfairness is substituted with a finding of substantive fairness. No order as to costs.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Dishonesty in Employment, Remuneration Disputes, Procedural Fairness, Parole Evidence Rule
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Dishonesty in Employment Remuneration Disputes Procedural Fairness Parole Evidence Rule

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

Parties

Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Winnie Everett (N.O.)

Respondent

BG Ncube

Respondent

A Erasmus

Respondent

C Prins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's finding that the respondents were not guilty of dishonesty was reasonable on the evidence before her.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' dismissals were substantively and procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator erred in admitting extraneous evidence contrary to the parole evidence rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the respondents were not dishonest was unreasonable and based on a credulous evaluation of the evidence. The contracts and board resolutions clearly set out the respondents' remuneration entitlements, and the respondents' acceptance of unauthorised payments, including significant increases and bonuses, could not plausibly be regarded as bona fide. The arbitrator's reliance on supposed flaws in the contracts and the Remco report was misplaced, and her admission of extraneous evidence did not justify the latitude afforded to the respondents. The respondents' conduct in approving handwritten amendments and receiving payments...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside, except for the finding of procedural unfairness, which is upheld. The finding of substantive unfairness is substituted with a finding of substantive fairness. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the second respondent dated 13 November 2016 under case number WECT 11309-16 is reviewed and set aside, except that the finding of procedural unfairness is upheld.
  • The finding that the third, fourth and fifth respondents' dismissals were substantively unfair is substituted with a finding that their dismissals were substantively fair.