Kommal and Another v South African Police Service and Others (JR1115/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 450 (5 December 2017)

Kommal and Another v South African Police Service and Others (JR1115/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 450 (5 December 2017)

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered both procedural and substantive fairness in the promotion process. The applicant failed to meet a minimum qualification requirement and had misrepresented his qualifications. The selection panel did not ignore equity considerations, and the absence of a complete record did not amount to procedural unfairness. The arbitrator's reasoning was thorough, and her conclusion was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach on the evidence. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 450
Parties
Applicant: Teddy Kommal; Applicant: POPCRU; Respondent: South African Police Service; Respondent: Brigadier C M Kotze; Respondent: Adv E Maree (NO); Respondent: Safety and Security Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2017
Case Number
JR1115/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion Dispute, Employment Equity, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Dispute Employment Equity 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teddy Kommal

Applicant

POPCRU

Applicant

South African Police Service

Respondent

Brigadier C M Kotze

Respondent

Adv E Maree (NO)

Respondent

Safety and Security Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to appoint the applicant to the post constituted an unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the selection panel complied with National Instructions and employment equity requirements.
  3. 3 Whether procedural or substantive unfairness occurred in the promotion process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered both procedural and substantive fairness in the promotion process. The applicant failed to meet a minimum qualification requirement and had misrepresented his qualifications. The selection panel did not ignore equity considerations, and the absence of a complete record did not amount to procedural unfairness. The arbitrator's reasoning was thorough, and her conclusion was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach on the evidence. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.