Mollo v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1147/03) [2009] ZALC 157; (2010) 31 ILJ 971 (LC) (22 September 2009)

Mollo v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1147/03) [2009] ZALC 157; (2010) 31 ILJ 971 (LC) (22 September 2009)

The court found that the arbitration was part heard before the third respondent, as parties had made admissions and narrowed issues, which are significant in the absence of pleadings. The second respondent should not have recommenced the arbitration. Furthermore, the second respondent committed a gross irregularity by disallowing the applicant's witness, Khumalo, without affording the applicant an opportunity to explain the relevance of his evidence and without providing reasons for the ruling. These procedural defects rendered the arbitration unfair and the award reviewable. The award issued by the second respondent was not one that a reasonable decision maker could have reached given...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 157
Parties
Applicant: Robert Motela Mollo; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Pat Stone N.O; Respondent: Jeanne Gaylard N.O; Respondent: ArcelorMittal SA Limited (Previously known as Iscor Flat Steel)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2009
Case Number
JR 1147/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for arbitration before a different commissioner. Fourth respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Nyathela AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Evidence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Procedural Fairness Admissibility of Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Motela Mollo

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Pat Stone N.O

Respondent

Jeanne Gaylard N.O

Respondent

ArcelorMittal SA Limited (Previously known as Iscor Flat Steel)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration was part heard before the third respondent and should not have been recommenced by the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent exceeded his powers by disallowing the applicant's witness, Khumalo, without affording the applicant an opportunity to motivate the relevance of the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewable on grounds of gross irregularity and procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitration was part heard before the third respondent, as parties had made admissions and narrowed issues, which are significant in the absence of pleadings. The second respondent should not have recommenced the arbitration. Furthermore, the second respondent committed a gross irregularity by disallowing the applicant's witness, Khumalo, without affording the applicant an opportunity to explain the relevance of his evidence and without providing reasons for the ruling. These procedural defects rendered the arbitration unfair and the award reviewable. The award issued by the second respondent was not one that a reasonable decision maker could have reached given...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for arbitration before a different commissioner. Fourth respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The award issued by the second respondent under case number MENT.1304 on 26 May 2003 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the first respondent to be heard by another commissioner other than the second and third respondents.