Mandalana v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2231/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 339 (7 November 2013)

Mandalana v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2231/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 339 (7 November 2013)

The court found that the applicant presented multiple, irreconcilable versions of his explanation for his absence, including intentional misrepresentations regarding the disciplinary code and the circumstances of his leave. The applicant failed to provide a credible or consistent account and did not approach the court with clean hands. The evidence supported the third respondent's version that no permission for absence was granted and that the disciplinary code justified dismissal for absence exceeding five days without permission. The arbitration award was brief but correct, and there was no basis for review. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 339
Parties
Applicant: Mzekele Amos Mandalana; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Musa Baloyi N O; Respondent: Piemans Pantry an operation of First Lifestyle Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2013
Case Number
JR2231/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Absence Without Leave, Disciplinary Code, Condonation
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Absence Without Leave Disciplinary Code Condonation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzekele Amos Mandalana

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Musa Baloyi N O

Respondent

Piemans Pantry an operation of First Lifestyle Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award upholding the applicant's dismissal was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a credible explanation for his prolonged absence from work.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary code justified dismissal for absence exceeding five days without permission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant presented multiple, irreconcilable versions of his explanation for his absence, including intentional misrepresentations regarding the disciplinary code and the circumstances of his leave. The applicant failed to provide a credible or consistent account and did not approach the court with clean hands. The evidence supported the third respondent's version that no permission for absence was granted and that the disciplinary code justified dismissal for absence exceeding five days without permission. The arbitration award was brief but correct, and there was no basis for review. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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