L A Crushers v CCMA and Others (JR 903/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 366 (27 September 2016)

L A Crushers v CCMA and Others (JR 903/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 366 (27 September 2016)

The Labour Court held that the jurisdictional ground was not properly pleaded and was raised for the first time in argument, which is impermissible. On the merits, the arbitrator's findings were reasonable: the employee's actions in attempting to communicate with the truck driver were justified given the circumstances, and the alleged assault was found to be accidental. The company failed to prove misconduct. The award was not so unreasonable as to be reviewable under the Sidumo test. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 366
Parties
Applicant: L A Crushers; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: B E Rickman Hone N.O.; Respondent: NUM obo Collen Nyathi
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Case Number
JR 903/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Jurisdiction of Ccma 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L A Crushers

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

B E Rickman Hone N.O.

Respondent

NUM obo Collen Nyathi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to reinstate the dispute after initial withdrawal.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair was reviewable under the Sidumo test.
  3. 3 Whether the employee's conduct constituted misconduct warranting dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the jurisdictional ground was not properly pleaded and was raised for the first time in argument, which is impermissible. On the merits, the arbitrator's findings were reasonable: the employee's actions in attempting to communicate with the truck driver were justified given the circumstances, and the alleged assault was found to be accidental. The company failed to prove misconduct. The award was not so unreasonable as to be reviewable under the Sidumo test. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.