Liebenberg v Incredible Connection and Others (JR1914/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 182 (17 May 2016)

Liebenberg v Incredible Connection and Others (JR1914/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 182 (17 May 2016)

The Labour Court found that the Third Respondent (arbitrator) misconstrued the Applicant's evidence regarding the sequence of events leading to her dismissal, particularly the claim that the Applicant slapped Malope in self-defence only after being strangled, not after water was poured on her. The arbitrator's repeated incorrect interpretation of the Applicant's evidence led to a flawed assessment of substantive fairness and the conclusion that the Applicant started the altercation. The arbitrator failed to properly consider discrepancies in witness testimony, especially Maseko's, and disregarded the Applicant's seniority and conciliatory conduct. These errors amounted to a gross...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 182
Parties
Applicant: R. E. Liebenberg; Respondent: Incredible Connection; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Mapalo N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Case Number
JR1914/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review succeeds; arbitration award set aside and matter referred back to the CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner.
Judges
Pienaar
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Self Defence in Dismissal, Credibility of Witnesses, Gross Irregularity, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Self Defence in Dismissal Credibility of Witnesses Gross Irregularity 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. E. Liebenberg

Applicant

Incredible Connection

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Mapalo N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Third Respondent correctly interpret and assess the Applicant's evidence regarding the altercation and dismissal?
  2. 2 Was the Applicant's dismissal substantively fair in light of the evidence and the alleged self-defence?
  3. 3 Did the Third Respondent commit a gross irregularity by relying on unsupported factual findings?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the Third Respondent (arbitrator) misconstrued the Applicant's evidence regarding the sequence of events leading to her dismissal, particularly the claim that the Applicant slapped Malope in self-defence only after being strangled, not after water was poured on her. The arbitrator's repeated incorrect interpretation of the Applicant's evidence led to a flawed assessment of substantive fairness and the conclusion that the Applicant started the altercation. The arbitrator failed to properly consider discrepancies in witness testimony, especially Maseko's, and disregarded the Applicant's seniority and conciliatory conduct. These errors amounted to a gross...

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeds; arbitration award set aside and matter referred back to the CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the Third Respondent is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the CCMA to be heard by a commissioner other than the Third Respondent.