Lippert and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (C1032/2012) [2014] ZALCCT 42 (31 July 2014)

Lippert and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (C1032/2012) [2014] ZALCCT 42 (31 July 2014)

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner failed to properly apply his mind to the issue of procedural fairness and misconstrued the requirements of Rule 25(3) of the CCMA Rules. The Commissioner’s reasoning was fundamentally flawed, as he did not adequately consider the comparative ability of the parties or the complexity of the matter. The applicants were denied a fair trial of the issues due to the refusal of legal representation and the Commissioner’s interference during the proceedings. The Court held that these failures constituted gross irregularity and misconduct, warranting the review and setting aside of the arbitration award. The dispute was referred back to the CCMA for a...

Citation
[2014] ZALCCT 42
Parties
Applicant: T Lippert; Applicant: F Lippert; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner JP Hanekom NO; Respondent: EZT Travel (Pty) Ltd t/a Global Travel Allowance South Africa
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Case Number
C1032/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute referred back for hearing anew before a different Commissioner; legal representation permitted; costs awarded against third respondent.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Legal Representation in Ccma, Procedural Fairness, Gross Irregularity, Misconduct by Commissioner
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Legal Representation in Ccma Procedural Fairness Gross Irregularity Misconduct by Commissioner

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T Lippert

Applicant

F Lippert

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner JP Hanekom NO

Respondent

EZT Travel (Pty) Ltd t/a Global Travel Allowance South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by refusing legal representation to the applicants at the arbitration hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Commissioner during the proceedings resulted in procedural unfairness.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside due to misconduct and failure to provide a fair trial of the issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner failed to properly apply his mind to the issue of procedural fairness and misconstrued the requirements of Rule 25(3) of the CCMA Rules. The Commissioner’s reasoning was fundamentally flawed, as he did not adequately consider the comparative ability of the parties or the complexity of the matter. The applicants were denied a fair trial of the issues due to the refusal of legal representation and the Commissioner’s interference during the proceedings. The Court held that these failures constituted gross irregularity and misconduct, warranting the review and setting aside of the arbitration award. The dispute was referred back to the CCMA for a...

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; dispute referred back for hearing anew before a different Commissioner; legal representation permitted; costs awarded against third respondent.

Orders

  • The arbitration award under case number WECT324 – 12 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the First Respondent for hearing anew before a Commissioner other than the Second Respondent.