Msomi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D694/05) [2007] ZALCD 9 (19 March 2007)

Msomi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D694/05) [2007] ZALCD 9 (19 March 2007)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was based squarely on the evidence presented. The applicant admitted to unauthorised absence and was aware of the disciplinary consequences, having previously been warned. There is no obligation on the employer to issue repeated written warnings for persistent absenteeism, even if previous warnings have expired. The applicant's grounds for review did not meet the threshold set by section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZALCD 9
Parties
Applicant: Thokozani Michael Msomi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Nhlanhla Mathe; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2007
Case Number
D694/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Absenteeism, Disciplinary Procedure, Labour Relations Act Review
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Absenteeism Disciplinary Procedure Labour Relations Act Review

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thokozani Michael Msomi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Nhlanhla Mathe

Respondent

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award dismissing the applicant for absenteeism should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the employer was obliged to issue a written warning for repeated absenteeism after previous warnings had expired.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct prejudiced the administration, discipline, and efficiency of the employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was based squarely on the evidence presented. The applicant admitted to unauthorised absence and was aware of the disciplinary consequences, having previously been warned. There is no obligation on the employer to issue repeated written warnings for persistent absenteeism, even if previous warnings have expired. The applicant's grounds for review did not meet the threshold set by section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.