Mxalisa and Others v Dominion Uranium Joint and Another (JR 1475/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 5; (2013) 34 ILJ 2052 (LC) (23 January 2013)

Mxalisa and Others v Dominion Uranium Joint and Another (JR 1475/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 5; (2013) 34 ILJ 2052 (LC) (23 January 2013)

The court held that the grounds for review of private arbitration awards are strictly limited to those set out in section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act, namely misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers. The arbitrator’s findings were based on a detailed assessment of witness credibility, which courts are slow to interfere with unless there is a failure to properly apply the rules of evidence. The applicants participated in an unprotected strike, and the employer was entitled to engage with the recognised trade union rather than the crisis committee. The employer issued ultimatums and provided opportunities for the applicants to respond and appeal. The arbitrator did not...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 5
Parties
Applicant: Siyabulela Mxalisa and Others; Respondent: Dominion Uranium Joint; Respondent: Roland Surtherland N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Case Number
JR 1475/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Private Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Dismissal for Misconduct, Procedural Fairness, Arbitration Review, Audi Alteram Partem, Trade Union Recognition
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unprotected Strike Dismissal for Misconduct Procedural Fairness Arbitration Review Audi Alteram Partem Trade Union Recognition

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyabulela Mxalisa and Others

Applicant

Dominion Uranium Joint

Respondent

Roland Surtherland N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Private Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ultimatum was given to the individual applicants before dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the ultimatum and make submissions regarding dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals were procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the grounds for review of private arbitration awards are strictly limited to those set out in section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act, namely misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers. The arbitrator’s findings were based on a detailed assessment of witness credibility, which courts are slow to interfere with unless there is a failure to properly apply the rules of evidence. The applicants participated in an unprotected strike, and the employer was entitled to engage with the recognised trade union rather than the crisis committee. The employer issued ultimatums and provided opportunities for the applicants to respond and appeal. The arbitrator did not...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application to have the arbitration award of the second respondent reviewed is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.