Motshoane v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (JR1808/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 98 (9 March 2018)

Motshoane v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (JR1808/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 98 (9 March 2018)

The Court held that the applicant's grounds for review were largely premised on criticisms of the Commissioner’s analysis of the evidence, conflating the principles of appeal and review. The Commissioner’s findings on both procedural and substantive fairness were connected to the evidence and fell within the range...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 98
Parties
Applicant: Jimson Galebodiwe Motshoane; Respondent: Education Labour Relations Council; Respondent: Coen Havenga N.O.; Respondent: Department of Education: Gauteng Province
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2018
Case Number
JR1808/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
C Goosen
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Sexual Misconduct, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Sexual Misconduct Disciplinary Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimson Galebodiwe Motshoane

Applicant

Education Labour Relations Council

Respondent

Coen Havenga N.O.

Respondent

Department of Education: Gauteng Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant was reviewable under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry or failed to fairly determine the issues.
  3. 3 Whether the findings on procedural and substantive fairness were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant's grounds for review were largely premised on criticisms of the Commissioner’s analysis of the evidence, conflating the principles of appeal and review. The Commissioner’s findings on both procedural and substantive fairness were connected to the evidence and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes. The applicant failed to submit proof of illness in time and was afforded sufficient opportunity to participate in the disciplinary hearing. The Commissioner reasonably found the applicant guilty of sexual assault, fraud, improper conduct, and assault based on credible and corroborated evidence. The applicant did not demonstrate that the Commissioner...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.