Makhafola v Mudau and Others (J578/00) [2002] ZALC 10 (6 February 2002)

Makhafola v Mudau and Others (J578/00) [2002] ZALC 10 (6 February 2002)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide any reasoning or factual basis for his conclusion that the dismissal was fair. The arbitrator did not specify the nature of the instruction, whether it was reasonable, or why the applicant failed to comply. The arbitrator's assertion that employees must render services in a subordinate manner is not supported by South African labour law. In the absence of opposition and adequate reasoning, the award cannot stand and must be set aside.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 10
Parties
Applicant: Elias Makhafola; Respondent: A.R. Mudau; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Starck Doors Corporation
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2002
Case Number
J578/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration to be heard by another arbitrator.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Procedural Fairness Substantive 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Makhafola

Applicant

A.R. Mudau

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Starck Doors Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award upholding the applicant's dismissal was rationally and reasonably connected to the facts.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasoning regarding the nature and reasonableness of the instruction allegedly disobeyed.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's understanding of the employee's duty was consistent with South African labour law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to provide any reasoning or factual basis for his conclusion that the dismissal was fair. The arbitrator did not specify the nature of the instruction, whether it was reasonable, or why the applicant failed to comply. The arbitrator's assertion that employees must render services in a subordinate manner is not supported by South African labour law. In the absence of opposition and adequate reasoning, the award cannot stand and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration to be heard by another arbitrator.

Orders

  • The arbitration award made by the first respondent is set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration to be heard by another arbitrator.