Mabasa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2594/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 233 (4 May 2016)

Mabasa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2594/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 233 (4 May 2016)

The court found that the Commissioner properly assessed the evidentiary material and discharged his obligations. The evidence established that the applicant, as train driver, was responsible for ensuring the vacuum brake was properly created and continuously observed. The applicant failed to prove that the Commissioner misdirected himself or that any defect existed in the award as defined in section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The Commissioner’s findings that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the uncontested testimony of respondent witnesses regarding the cause of the derailment and the applicant’s...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 233
Parties
Applicant: Michael Mabasa; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: JLE Pienaar N.O; Respondent: Passenger Rail of South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2016
Case Number
JR2594/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; no costs order made.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Misconduct, Negligence, Section 145 Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal for Misconduct Negligence Section 145 Labour Relations Act

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mabasa

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

JLE Pienaar N.O

Respondent

Passenger Rail of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner misdirected himself in assessing the evidence before him.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant proved any defect in the arbitration award as defined in section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner properly assessed the evidentiary material and discharged his obligations. The evidence established that the applicant, as train driver, was responsible for ensuring the vacuum brake was properly created and continuously observed. The applicant failed to prove that the Commissioner misdirected himself or that any defect existed in the award as defined in section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The Commissioner’s findings that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the uncontested testimony of respondent witnesses regarding the cause of the derailment and the applicant’s...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no costs order made.

Orders

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