Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd v Phetla and Others (JR3135/05) [2006] ZALCJHB 23 (12 December 2006)

Morris Material Handling (Pty) Ltd v Phetla and Others (JR3135/05) [2006] ZALCJHB 23 (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 under the zero tolerance policy. 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 system. The commissioner correctly admitted the blood test as evidence and found that the third respondent's conduct did not amount to a breach of good faith. The applicant attempted to argue misconduct not charged, which is impermissible. The award was rational and...

Citation
[2006] ZALCJHB 23
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 Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Case Number
JR3135/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Misconduct, Breach of Good Faith, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Substantive Fairness Misconduct Breach of Good Faith Review of Arbitration Award

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 in finding the dismissal substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was guilty of reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent breached his duty of good faith.

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 under the zero tolerance policy. 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 system. The commissioner correctly admitted the blood test as evidence and found that the third respondent's conduct did not amount to a breach of good faith. The applicant attempted to argue misconduct not charged, which is impermissible. The award was rational and...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

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