Metrofile (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J555/99) [2000] ZALC 158 (1 August 2000)

Metrofile (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J555/99) [2000] ZALC 158 (1 August 2000)

The court found that the Second Respondent committed misconduct and gross irregularity by failing to accurately record and consider the admitted contents of the transcripts, which demonstrated dishonesty by the Fourth Respondent. The Second Respondent confused the issues of admissibility and weight of evidence, disregarded uncontested material evidence, and drew unjustified adverse inferences. The dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantively fair due to his dishonesty, and there was no basis for compensation. The arbitration award was set aside and corrected to reflect the substantive fairness of the dismissal.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 158
Parties
Applicant: Metrofile (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lebea JN, NO; Respondent: Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Boyd C
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2000
Case Number
J555/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and corrected to reflect that the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantially fair. The Third and Fourth Respondents are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally. The application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the LRA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Dishonesty in Employment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Dishonesty in Employment

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

Metrofile (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lebea JN, NO

Respondent

Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Boyd C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was vitiated by misconduct or gross irregularity in terms of section 145 of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the tape recordings and transcripts were properly admitted and considered as evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Respondent committed misconduct and gross irregularity by failing to accurately record and consider the admitted contents of the transcripts, which demonstrated dishonesty by the Fourth Respondent. The Second Respondent confused the issues of admissibility and weight of evidence, disregarded uncontested material evidence, and drew unjustified adverse inferences. The dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantively fair due to his dishonesty, and there was no basis for compensation. The arbitration award was set aside and corrected to reflect the substantive fairness of the dismissal.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and corrected to reflect that the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantially fair. The Third and Fourth Respondents are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally. The application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the LRA is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 6 January 1999, handed down by the Second Respondent, is reviewed and corrected to state that the dismissal of the Fourth Respondent was substantially fair.
  • The Third and Fourth Respondents are to pay the costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.