Mahlase v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR475/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 313 (19 August 2016)

Mahlase v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR475/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 313 (19 August 2016)

The court found that the delay in initiating disciplinary action did not result in unfairness to the applicant, as she was able to defend herself effectively and no prejudice was demonstrated. The Commissioner’s findings regarding the applicant’s credibility and non-compliance with procurement policies were reasonable and rationally connected to the evidence. As a senior employee, the applicant was expected to acquaint herself with relevant policies, and her lack of training did not exculpate her. The arbitration award was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach, and no reviewable irregularity was present.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 313
Parties
Applicant: Shirley Mahlase; Respondent: The Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Mark Hawyes N.O.; Respondent: Transnet Freight Rail (an operating division of Transnet SOC Ltd)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Case Number
JR 475/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Morgan
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Disciplinary Delay, Senior Employee Misconduct, Procurement Policy Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Disciplinary Delay Senior Employee Misconduct Procurement Policy Compliance

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shirley Mahlase

Applicant

The Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Mark Hawyes N.O.

Respondent

Transnet Freight Rail (an operating division of Transnet SOC Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in initiating disciplinary action against the applicant rendered the process unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant was reviewable under Section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant, as a senior employee, was reasonably expected to comply with procurement policies despite alleged lack of training.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in initiating disciplinary action did not result in unfairness to the applicant, as she was able to defend herself effectively and no prejudice was demonstrated. The Commissioner’s findings regarding the applicant’s credibility and non-compliance with procurement policies were reasonable and rationally connected to the evidence. As a senior employee, the applicant was expected to acquaint herself with relevant policies, and her lack of training did not exculpate her. The arbitration award was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach, and no reviewable irregularity was present.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.