Nampack Corrugated Containers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D863-06) [2008] ZALC 105; (2009) 30 ILJ 647 (LC) (21 July 2008)

Nampack Corrugated Containers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D863-06) [2008] ZALC 105; (2009) 30 ILJ 647 (LC) (21 July 2008)

The court found that the commissioner’s award was unreasonable because he failed to properly evaluate the totality of the evidence and the seriousness of the misconduct. The third respondent’s conduct in misrepresenting himself as an attorney, threatening legal action, and bringing the applicant into disrepute was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZALC 105
Parties
Applicant: Nampack Corrugated Containers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lister Sullivan NO.; Respondent: Gordon Timothy
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2008
Case Number
D863-06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted with a finding that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Misrepresentation, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Misrepresentation 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nampack Corrugated Containers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lister Sullivan NO.

Respondent

Gordon Timothy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the commissioner was reasonable in light of the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner failed to properly evaluate the totality of the evidence and the seriousness of the misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s award was unreasonable because he failed to properly evaluate the totality of the evidence and the seriousness of the misconduct. The third respondent’s conduct in misrepresenting himself as an attorney, threatening legal action, and bringing the applicant into disrepute was deliberate and aggravated by his lack of remorse. The commissioner failed to consider the impact of the misconduct on the employment relationship and the risk posed to the applicant. The dismissal was found to be both substantively and procedurally fair, and the arbitration award was set aside and substituted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted with a finding that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued under case number KNDB7209-06 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The award is substituted by the following: 'The dismissal of the applicant, Gordon Timothy, was both substantively and procedurally fair.'