Mitre Veneering CC v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1440/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 82 (6 March 2018)

Mitre Veneering CC v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1440/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 82 (6 March 2018)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was unreasonable and based on a misconstruction of the evidence. The arbitrator failed to properly evaluate the direct evidence of the factory manager, who identified the four boards as belonging to Da Vinci and not Mitre, and whose testimony was unchallenged regarding the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 82
Parties
Applicant: Mitre Veneering CC; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Dida Masenye (N.O.); Respondent: ITU obo Albert Dlamini
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2018
Case Number
JR1440/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application succeeds; the arbitration award is set aside and substituted with a finding of substantively fair dismissal.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Misconduct, Attempted Theft, Reinstatement, Reasonableness of Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal for Misconduct Attempted Theft Reinstatement Reasonableness of Award

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitre Veneering CC

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Dida Masenye (N.O.)

Respondent

ITU obo Albert Dlamini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award reinstating the employees was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator misconstrued material evidence regarding the alleged attempted theft.
  3. 3 Whether the employment relationship had broken down, justifying reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was unreasonable and based on a misconstruction of the evidence. The arbitrator failed to properly evaluate the direct evidence of the factory manager, who identified the four boards as belonging to Da Vinci and not Mitre, and whose testimony was unchallenged regarding the type of boards and the lack of supporting paperwork. The arbitrator also failed to consider the inherent probabilities and the fact that crucial aspects of the employees' version were not put to the factory manager under cross-examination. The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the employees were guilty of attempted theft, and the trust relationship was...

Court Disposition

The review application succeeds; the arbitration award is set aside and substituted with a finding of substantively fair dismissal.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 24 June 2014 issued by the second respondent under case number GAJB17708-13 is reviewed and set aside.
  • Paragraph 6 of the award is substituted with a finding that the dismissal of the applicant, Mr A Dlamini, was substantively fair.