National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR388/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 508; [2017] 4 BLLR 405 (LC) (15 December 2016)

National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR388/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 508; [2017] 4 BLLR 405 (LC) (15 December 2016)

The court held that the arbitrator did not misconceive the nature of the enquiry. The terms of reference required the arbitrator to choose between the union's and Eskom's proposals, not to craft a compromise using the hypothetical outcome approach. The arbitrator properly considered all relevant factors, including affordability, comparability, and productivity, and gave due weight to the evidence presented. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator ignored material evidence or acted irrationally. The constraints imposed by the terms of reference limited the arbitrator's discretion, and the award was not one that no reasonable arbitrator could have made. The review...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 508
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Applicant: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Floors Brand (N.O.); Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd; Respondent: Solidarity
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
JR388/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Interest Arbitration, Final Offer Arbitration, Reasonableness Review, Affordability, Comparability, Collective Bargaining
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interest Arbitration Final Offer Arbitration Reasonableness Review Affordability Comparability Collective Bargaining

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Floors Brand (N.O.)

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Respondent

Solidarity

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misconceived the nature of the enquiry by failing to apply the hypothetical outcome approach as required by the terms of reference.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator ignored material evidence relating to affordability, productivity, inflation, and wage disparities.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to determine issues regarding housing benefits and union office facilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator did not misconceive the nature of the enquiry. The terms of reference required the arbitrator to choose between the union's and Eskom's proposals, not to craft a compromise using the hypothetical outcome approach. The arbitrator properly considered all relevant factors, including affordability, comparability, and productivity, and gave due weight to the evidence presented. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator ignored material evidence or acted irrationally. The constraints imposed by the terms of reference limited the arbitrator's discretion, and the award was not one that no reasonable arbitrator could have made. The review...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.