Mdlangathi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D998/12) [2015] ZALCD 40 (10 July 2015)

Mdlangathi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D998/12) [2015] ZALCD 40 (10 July 2015)

The court found that the Commissioner neither misconceived the nature of the enquiry nor arrived at an unreasonable result. The applicant's conduct in pre-signing payment certificates was not justified by workplace practice, and he failed to exercise due diligence. The admission of bank statements was not irregular, as the applicant had personal knowledge of the transactions and did not object to their admission. The findings of guilt on counts 2, 9, and 40 were reasonable on the evidence before the arbitrator. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZALCD 40
Parties
Applicant: Raynold Zithulele Mdlangathi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mike Cowling N.O.; Respondent: Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Case Number
D998/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Admissibility of Evidence, Gross Misconduct, Preferential Procurement, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Admissibility of Evidence Gross Misconduct Preferential Procurement Disciplinary Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raynold Zithulele Mdlangathi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mike Cowling N.O.

Respondent

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was unreasonable and should be set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was guilty of gross misconduct, gross dishonesty, or gross negligence in relation to counts 2, 9, and 40.
  3. 3 Whether the admission of bank statements as evidence at arbitration was irregular or prejudicial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner neither misconceived the nature of the enquiry nor arrived at an unreasonable result. The applicant's conduct in pre-signing payment certificates was not justified by workplace practice, and he failed to exercise due diligence. The admission of bank statements was not irregular, as the applicant had personal knowledge of the transactions and did not object to their admission. The findings of guilt on counts 2, 9, and 40 were reasonable on the evidence before the arbitrator. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

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