Mollo v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1147/03) [2009] ZALCJHB 20; (2010) 31 ILJ 971 (LC) (22 September 2009)

Mollo v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1147/03) [2009] ZALCJHB 20; (2010) 31 ILJ 971 (LC) (22 September 2009)

The Labour Court found that the arbitration was part heard before the third respondent, as the parties had made admissions and narrowed issues after opening statements, and there were no pleadings or pre-arbitration minutes to guide a new arbitrator. The second respondent should not have recommenced the arbitration. Furthermore, the second respondent committed a gross irregularity by disallowing the applicant's witness without affording the applicant an opportunity to motivate the relevance of the evidence and without providing reasons for the ruling. These procedural defects rendered the award reviewable. The decision reached by the second respondent was not one that a reasonable...

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 20
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 Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2009
Case Number
JR1147/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application succeeded. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted for arbitration before a different commissioner. Costs were awarded against the fourth respondent.
Judges
Nyathela
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Part Heard Arbitration, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Part Heard Arbitration Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness

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 / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award

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 committed a gross irregularity by disallowing the applicant's witness without affording an opportunity to motivate relevance.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewable and should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the arbitration was part heard before the third respondent, as the parties had made admissions and narrowed issues after opening statements, and there were no pleadings or pre-arbitration minutes to guide a new arbitrator. The second respondent should not have recommenced the arbitration. Furthermore, the second respondent committed a gross irregularity by disallowing the applicant's witness without affording the applicant an opportunity to motivate the relevance of the evidence and without providing reasons for the ruling. These procedural defects rendered the award reviewable. The decision reached by the second respondent was not one that a reasonable...

Court Disposition

The review application succeeded. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted for arbitration before a different commissioner. Costs were awarded against the fourth respondent.

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.