National Union Of Mineworkers obo Benjamin v CCMA and Others (C10/2010) [2011] ZALCCT 71 (5 July 2011)

National Union Of Mineworkers obo Benjamin v CCMA and Others (C10/2010) [2011] ZALCCT 71 (5 July 2011)

The court found that the commissioner’s award was reasoned, reasonable, lawful, and procedurally fair. The commissioner analysed the evidence, found the applicant intended to remove company property, was aware of the rule, and attempted to avoid being searched. The misconduct involved dishonesty, and dismissal was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZALCCT 71
Parties
Applicant: National Union Of Mineworkers obo Benjamin Gerhardus Jonathon; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Hendrik Olifant; Respondent: Sishen Mine
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2011
Case Number
C10/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness Standard, Dishonesty in Employment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness Standard Dishonesty in Employment

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

National Union Of Mineworkers obo Benjamin Gerhardus Jonathon

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Hendrik Olifant

Respondent

Sishen Mine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal substantively fair is reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed gross irregularities or reached an unreasonable conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether the rule allegedly contravened was established and reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s award was reasoned, reasonable, lawful, and procedurally fair. The commissioner analysed the evidence, found the applicant intended to remove company property, was aware of the rule, and attempted to avoid being searched. The misconduct involved dishonesty, and dismissal was an appropriate sanction. The grounds of review advanced by the applicant did not demonstrate that the award was one that no reasonable decision maker could reach or that there was any defect as contemplated by the LRA. Accordingly, the application to review and set aside the award was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.