Matsekoleng v Nkadimeng and Others (JR853/04) [2006] ZALCJHB 18 (18 October 2006)

Matsekoleng v Nkadimeng and Others (JR853/04) [2006] ZALCJHB 18 (18 October 2006)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any procedural irregularity or bias in the disciplinary process. The commissioner’s findings were supported by the evidence, including the requirement that all goods, including donations, be treated as company property and recorded accordingly. The applicant did not obtain specific authorisation from management for the use of the donated milk, and his actions breached company receiving rules. The review grounds advanced by the applicant were insufficient to meet the threshold for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The award was not irrational, and there was no misconduct or gross irregularity on the part of the...

Citation
[2006] ZALCJHB 18
Parties
Applicant: Supudu Reuben Matsekoleng; Respondent: Commissioner T.L. Nkadimeng; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2006
Case Number
JR853/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Dismissal 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supudu Reuben Matsekoleng

Applicant

Commissioner T.L. Nkadimeng

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent should be reviewed and set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeded his powers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any procedural irregularity or bias in the disciplinary process. The commissioner’s findings were supported by the evidence, including the requirement that all goods, including donations, be treated as company property and recorded accordingly. The applicant did not obtain specific authorisation from management for the use of the donated milk, and his actions breached company receiving rules. The review grounds advanced by the applicant were insufficient to meet the threshold for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The award was not irrational, and there was no misconduct or gross irregularity on the part of the...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review of the arbitration award issued by the first respondent on 9 February 2004 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.