Morkels Stores (Pty) Ltd v Woolfrey NO and Another (C194/98) [1999] ZALC 178 (1 February 1999)

Morkels Stores (Pty) Ltd v Woolfrey NO and Another (C194/98) [1999] ZALC 178 (1 February 1999)

The court found that the first respondent failed to reach a justifiable conclusion on the evidence before him. The commissioner ignored relevant evidence, including the testimony of Mr Morton, and did not properly consider the three specific incidents involving the second respondent. The reasoning that the applicant acted unfairly by disciplining individuals rather than the entire group was illogical and contrary to established labour law principles. The applicant was entitled to discipline and dismiss the second respondent for serious breaches of picketing rules and intimidation. The arbitration award was therefore reviewable and fell to be set aside.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 178
Parties
Applicant: Morkels Stores (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: David Woolfrey N.O; Respondent: John Barends
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 1999
Case Number
C194/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award issued by Commissioner David Woolfrey is set aside.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Procedure, Arbitration Review, Picketing Rules, Intimidation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Procedure Arbitration Review Picketing Rules Intimidation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morkels Stores (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

David Woolfrey N.O

Respondent

John Barends

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent was justifiable on the evidence before him.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to discipline and dismiss the second respondent individually for breaches of picketing rules and intimidation.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner failed to consider relevant evidence and applicable labour principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to reach a justifiable conclusion on the evidence before him. The commissioner ignored relevant evidence, including the testimony of Mr Morton, and did not properly consider the three specific incidents involving the second respondent. The reasoning that the applicant acted unfairly by disciplining individuals rather than the entire group was illogical and contrary to established labour law principles. The applicant was entitled to discipline and dismiss the second respondent for serious breaches of picketing rules and intimidation. The arbitration award was therefore reviewable and fell to be set aside.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award issued by Commissioner David Woolfrey is set aside.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by Commissioner David Woolfrey of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration under case number WE 7315 is set aside.