National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 545/09) [2010] ZALC 152; (2011) 32 ILJ 956 (LC) (22 October 2010)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 545/09) [2010] ZALC 152; (2011) 32 ILJ 956 (LC) (22 October 2010)

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the employer's disciplinary code was applicable was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The charge of 'aiding and abetting diamond theft' was sufficiently descriptive and encompassed the conduct for which the applicants were dismissed. The arbitrator's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 152
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Applicant: Johannes Madito; Applicant: Pule William Melamu; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Antony Osler N.O.; Respondent: Sedibeng Diamond Mine JV
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Case Number
C 545/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Code Application, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Code Application Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

Johannes Madito

Applicant

Pule William Melamu

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Antony Osler N.O.

Respondent

Sedibeng Diamond Mine JV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator applied an inapplicable disciplinary code to the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the charge at the disciplinary hearing was misdescribed and led to unfairness.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstantial evidence justified the finding of substantive fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that the employer's disciplinary code was applicable was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The charge of 'aiding and abetting diamond theft' was sufficiently descriptive and encompassed the conduct for which the applicants were dismissed. The arbitrator's reliance on circumstantial evidence was justified, and his factual findings were reasonable. The compensation awarded for procedural unfairness was not so inadequate as to be reviewable, given the minimal prejudice suffered. The arbitration award was considered thorough, reasoned, and not susceptible to review.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.