Ndlela and Others v Smith and Others (JR935/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 315 (29 August 2017)

Ndlela and Others v Smith and Others (JR935/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 315 (29 August 2017)

The court found that the commissioner’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicants were properly notified of the disciplinary enquiry, attended the hearing, and were given an opportunity to present their version but chose to walk out when external representation was refused. The evidence established that the applicants had submitted timesheets claiming overtime they had not worked, which constituted dishonesty. The commissioner’s refusal to recuse himself was justified, as there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The grounds of review advanced by the applicants were not supported by the record, and the award was not susceptible to review.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 315
Parties
Applicant: Ndlela and Others; Respondent: Commissioner Dave Smith; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: P.I.C.M Randfontein
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2017
Case Number
JR935/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
M Mthombeni
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Procedural Fairness, Dishonesty, Trade Union Representation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Procedural Fairness Dishonesty Trade Union Representation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndlela and Others

Applicant

Commissioner Dave Smith

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

P.I.C.M Randfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exceeded his powers in making the award.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicants were properly notified of the disciplinary enquiry, attended the hearing, and were given an opportunity to present their version but chose to walk out when external representation was refused. The evidence established that the applicants had submitted timesheets claiming overtime they had not worked, which constituted dishonesty. The commissioner’s refusal to recuse himself was justified, as there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The grounds of review advanced by the applicants were not supported by the record, and the award was not susceptible to review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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