Nationwide Airlines (Pty) Ltd v Mudau and Others (J1946/2000) [2002] ZALC 93; [2003] 3 BLLR 279 (LC) (4 November 2002)

Nationwide Airlines (Pty) Ltd v Mudau and Others (J1946/2000) [2002] ZALC 93; [2003] 3 BLLR 279 (LC) (4 November 2002)

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to a postponement as it was aware of the fourth respondent's version and could have arranged for the witness in advance. The evidence established that the fourth respondent was dismissed, not absconded, as he received a letter of termination for poor performance and the subsequent offer of a clerical position was not coupled with reinstatement. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the fourth respondent was not informed of the purpose of the meeting, not given prior access to the critical report, nor afforded union representation or a proper opportunity to influence the decision to dismiss. The deficiencies in the commissioner's...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 93
Parties
Applicant: Nationwide Airlines (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner AR Mudau; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: ALPA-SA obo M Wrighley; Respondent: Michael Wrighley
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2002
Case Number
J1946/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court.
Judges
Maserumule AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Compensation Award, Review of Arbitration, Audi Alteram Partem
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Compensation Award Review of Arbitration Audi Alteram Partem

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nationwide Airlines (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner AR Mudau

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

ALPA-SA obo M Wrighley

Respondent

Michael Wrighley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant a postponement at arbitration rendered the award reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the fourth respondent was dismissed or had absconded.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the fourth respondent was procedurally unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to a postponement as it was aware of the fourth respondent's version and could have arranged for the witness in advance. The evidence established that the fourth respondent was dismissed, not absconded, as he received a letter of termination for poor performance and the subsequent offer of a clerical position was not coupled with reinstatement. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the fourth respondent was not informed of the purpose of the meeting, not given prior access to the critical report, nor afforded union representation or a proper opportunity to influence the decision to dismiss. The deficiencies in the commissioner's...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court.

Orders

  • The application for review of the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The arbitration award issued by the first respondent is made an order of court.