Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd v Phetla and Others (JR 3135/05) [2006] ZALC 128 (12 December 2006)

Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd v Phetla and Others (JR 3135/05) [2006] ZALC 128 (12 December 2006)

The court found that the commissioner did not commit any gross irregularity in his award. The charge against the third respondent was for reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol, not for testing positive. The applicant's own witness withdrew the allegation of being under the influence, and the blood test conducted by a private doctor showed no alcohol in the third respondent's blood. The commissioner correctly admitted the blood test evidence and found that the third respondent was not guilty of the charged misconduct. The commissioner also properly considered the issue of good faith and found no deception or breach. The applicant's argument that the commissioner ignored...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 128
Parties
Applicant: Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner Adv. Mpho Phetla; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC); Respondent: Van Wyk, Ferdinand Petrus
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Case Number
JR 3135/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Ngcamu AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Review of Arbitration Award, Breach of Good Faith
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Substantive Fairness Review of Arbitration Award Breach of Good Faith

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner Adv. Mpho Phetla

Respondent

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC)

Respondent

Van Wyk, Ferdinand Petrus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity in failing to consider relevant evidence when finding the dismissal substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was dismissed for the correct charge under the employer's policy.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner ignored material evidence in reaching his award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner did not commit any gross irregularity in his award. The charge against the third respondent was for reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol, not for testing positive. The applicant's own witness withdrew the allegation of being under the influence, and the blood test conducted by a private doctor showed no alcohol in the third respondent's blood. The commissioner correctly admitted the blood test evidence and found that the third respondent was not guilty of the charged misconduct. The commissioner also properly considered the issue of good faith and found no deception or breach. The applicant's argument that the commissioner ignored...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.