Malek v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (D32/10) [2013] ZALCD 2 (31 January 2013)

Malek v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (D32/10) [2013] ZALCD 2 (31 January 2013)

The court found that the applicant had indeed signed the letter of reprimand, as confirmed by both the respondent's and the applicant's own handwriting experts. The applicant's denial of his signature was not bona fide and was intended to mislead the arbitration. The agreement of compromise, in the absence of a reservation of rights, barred the applicant from pursuing the original cause of action regarding promotion. The review grounds advanced by the applicant amounted to an appeal rather than a review and did not meet the reasonableness standard required for setting aside the arbitration award. The court held that the decision of the second respondent was reasonable and that the...

Citation
[2013] ZALCD 2
Parties
Applicant: Devanand Malek; Respondent: Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Muhammed Dollie N.O.; Respondent: Transnet Limited t/a Transnet Rail Engineering
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Case Number
D32/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion Dispute, Compromise Agreement, Dishonesty, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Labour Practice Promotion Dispute Compromise Agreement Dishonesty Review of Arbitration Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devanand Malek

Applicant

Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Muhammed Dollie N.O.

Respondent

Transnet Limited t/a Transnet Rail Engineering

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's denial of his signature on the letter of reprimand was bona fide or intentionally dishonest.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement of compromise bars the applicant from pursuing the original cause of action regarding promotion.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant was reviewable under the reasonableness standard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had indeed signed the letter of reprimand, as confirmed by both the respondent's and the applicant's own handwriting experts. The applicant's denial of his signature was not bona fide and was intended to mislead the arbitration. The agreement of compromise, in the absence of a reservation of rights, barred the applicant from pursuing the original cause of action regarding promotion. The review grounds advanced by the applicant amounted to an appeal rather than a review and did not meet the reasonableness standard required for setting aside the arbitration award. The court held that the decision of the second respondent was reasonable and that the...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application in this matter is dismissed.
  • No costs order is made.