Malang v Wynland Printers (Pty) Limited and Another (C365/99) [1999] ZALC 137 (27 August 1999)

Malang v Wynland Printers (Pty) Limited and Another (C365/99) [1999] ZALC 137 (27 August 1999)

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the applicant was offered reinstatement, albeit in a different position, was justifiable on the facts. The distinction between reinstatement and re-employment was not material to the review, as the applicant was offered continuity of employment. The court held that the procedural fairness challenge was limited to the dual chairing of hearings, and since there was no more senior person available, and the appeal resulted in an offer of reinstatement, there was no procedural unfairness. The court further found that management's discussions in the absence of the applicant were not raised as a procedural challenge before the arbitrator and...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 137
Parties
Applicant: Desmond Malang; Respondent: Mr D I K Wilson N.O. Commissioner CCMA; Respondent: Wynland Printers (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 1999
Case Number
C365/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Stelzner
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Insubordination, Reinstatement Vs Reemployment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Insubordination Reinstatement Vs Reemployment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond Malang

Applicant

Mr D I K Wilson N.O. Commissioner CCMA

Respondent

Wynland Printers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award by the first respondent was unjustifiable in relation to the reasons given.
  2. 2 Whether the offer made to the applicant constituted reinstatement or re-employment.
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was compromised by the same person chairing both the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the applicant was offered reinstatement, albeit in a different position, was justifiable on the facts. The distinction between reinstatement and re-employment was not material to the review, as the applicant was offered continuity of employment. The court held that the procedural fairness challenge was limited to the dual chairing of hearings, and since there was no more senior person available, and the appeal resulted in an offer of reinstatement, there was no procedural unfairness. The court further found that management's discussions in the absence of the applicant were not raised as a procedural challenge before the arbitrator and...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

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