Metrorail (PRASA) V SATAWU obo Ndlovu and Others (JA124/2013) [2016] ZALAC 3 (3 February 2016)

Metrorail (PRASA) V SATAWU obo Ndlovu and Others (JA124/2013) [2016] ZALAC 3 (3 February 2016)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the arbitrator's inference, based on the evidence of the appellant's witnesses and the absence of any reported defects in the braking system, was reasonable. The train was tested after the derailment and the brakes were found to be working. The first respondent did not report any faults prior to departure, and the evidence suggested he did not engage the brakes timeously. The arbitrator's decision that the dismissal was substantively fair was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The Labour Court erred in setting aside the award and ordering reinstatement.

Citation
[2016] ZALAC 3
Parties
Appellant: Metrorail (PRASA); Respondent: SATAWU obo Ndlovu; Respondent: M S Raffee; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2016
Case Number
JA124/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court's order set aside; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ndlovu JA, Landman JA, Mngqibisa-Thusi AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness Standard, Procedural Fairness, Negligence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness Standard Procedural Fairness Negligence

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

Metrorail (PRASA)

Appellant

SATAWU obo Ndlovu

Respondent

M S Raffee

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award was reasonable and justifiable in relation to the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the train derailment was caused by negligence or faulty brakes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the arbitrator's inference, based on the evidence of the appellant's witnesses and the absence of any reported defects in the braking system, was reasonable. The train was tested after the derailment and the brakes were found to be working. The first respondent did not report any faults prior to departure, and the evidence suggested he did not engage the brakes timeously. The arbitrator's decision that the dismissal was substantively fair was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The Labour Court erred in setting aside the award and ordering reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court's order set aside; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.
  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside and replaced with: (1) The review application is dismissed. (2) No order as to costs.