Mayisela v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 791/2021) [2024] ZALCJHB 153 (27 March 2024)

Mayisela v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 791/2021) [2024] ZALCJHB 153 (27 March 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with a clear instruction to submit the KPI file directly to his supervisor before going on leave, and his version that he handed the file to Mr Coetzee was improbable and unsupported by evidence. The arbitrator's findings were based on the evidence presented,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 153
Parties
Applicant: Nkosinathi Freedom Mayisela; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Comfort Mokabane N.O.; Respondent: Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd – Goedgevonden Complex
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Case Number
JR 791/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Mine Health and Safety Act, Costs in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Mine Health and Safety Act Costs in Labour Court

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkosinathi Freedom Mayisela

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Comfort Mokabane N.O.

Respondent

Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd – Goedgevonden Complex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award dismissing the applicant's unfair dismissal claim was reviewable and unreasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal for failure to submit a KPI file constituted misconduct and was procedurally and substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant made out proper grounds for review in his affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with a clear instruction to submit the KPI file directly to his supervisor before going on leave, and his version that he handed the file to Mr Coetzee was improbable and unsupported by evidence. The arbitrator's findings were based on the evidence presented, including the applicant's concessions in cross-examination regarding the importance of the KPI file, prior warnings, and failure to submit the file as instructed. The grounds for review advanced by the applicant were vague, unsubstantiated, and did not demonstrate that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable or disconnected from the evidence. The court held that the arbitrator's...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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