Ngozwane v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D860/06) [2009] ZALC 46 (25 February 2009)
The Court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding the applicant guilty of dishonesty, as the charge was broad enough to cover her conduct in changing the deal on the computer to defraud the company. The applicant's defence was a mere technicality and did not address the substance of the misconduct. The Court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZALC 46
- Parties
- Applicant: Ntombemhlophe A. Ngozwane; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner P van Zyl; Respondent: Relyant Retail Ltd t/a Savell's Furnishers
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- D860/06
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
- Outcome
- Application for review dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Pillay D
- Legal Topics
- Dishonesty, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ntombemhlophe A. Ngozwane
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Commissioner P van Zyl
Respondent
Relyant Retail Ltd t/a Savell's Furnishers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitrator found the applicant guilty of an offence for which she was not charged.
- 2 Whether the arbitration award is reviewable under the Sidumo standard.
- 3 Whether fairness to both employer and employee was observed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding the applicant guilty of dishonesty, as the charge was broad enough to cover her conduct in changing the deal on the computer to defraud the company. The applicant's defence was a mere technicality and did not address the substance of the misconduct. The Court found no bona fide explanation for her actions and was not persuaded of her honesty. The review application failed to demonstrate that the arbitration award was unreasonable or reviewable under the Sidumo standard. The application for review was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT DURBAN
CASE NO: D860/06
Not reportable DATE: 25 February 2009
In the matter between
NTOMBEMHLOPHE A. NGOZWANE APPLICANT
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION FIRST RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER P VAN ZYL SECOND RESPONDENT
RELYANT RETAIL LTD T/A SAVELLâS
FURNISHERS THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT 25 FEBRUARY 2009
_____________________________________________________________
PILLAY D, J
This review can be decided on a singular issue, namely whether the arbitrator found the applicant employee was found guilty of an offence for which she was not charged. The employee was charged for:
âDishonesty/fraud in that you wilfully and deliberately defrauded the company by claiming sales commission on your sonâs name for sales that he did not do.â
The arbitrator found her guilty of dishonesty,
ââ¦in changing the deal on the computer and that she had done so to defraud the company in an attempt to get them to pay the commission to her instead of Gaylord.â
The arbitrator determined that the charge was wide enough to enable him to find her guilty in these terms. This Court agrees with the arbitrator. The employeeâs defence raised at the arbitration was a technicality at best. She did not dispute that she changed the deal on the computer. Her only defence was that she could not be found guilty on that ground because she was not charged in those terms.
Assuming that the Court or the arbitrator were to accept that defence, the result would be to find her not guilty on the charges
for which she was dismissed, reinstate her, re-hear the matter, which re-hearing might substantially traverse the same ground of evidence at a disciplinary hearing, and then possibly process the dispute through conciliation to arbitration, all of which might endure for another year, if not longer. That is clearly not the expeditious resolution contemplated in terms of the LRA or even the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No 108 of 1996. Fairness, the Constitutional Court has said repeatedly, is fairness to both the employer and the employee.
If the employee had any credible defence or explanation for effecting the changes, then the moment for tendering that defence was, firstly, when she was charged and secondly at the disciplinary enquiry. If it was not done by that stage, then definitely it should have been tendered by the time the dispute reached the conciliation and arbitration stages at the CCMA. This Court is in the dark as to what bona fide explanation she had. It is certainly not tendered in these papers. An honest witness who has an honest explanation will tender it at the first opportunity. The Court is not persuaded that the employee is an honest witness. In any event, there is nothing in the award in the light of the Sidumo & Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC) judgment that renders it reviewable. The application for review is DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
________________
Pillay D, J
Date of Editing: 22 May 2009
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Mr Jafta-Jafta Inc
For the Respondent: Adv C Nel instructed by Calitz Crockart & Associates
TRANSCRIBERâS CERTIFICATE
This is, to the best abilities of the transcriber and proofreader, a true and correct transcript of the proceedings, where audible, recorded by means of a mechanical recorder in the matter:
M NGOZWANE v SAVELLâS FURNISHERS
CASE NO : D860/06
PILLAY J OF ORIGIN : DURBAN
TRANSCRIBER : I BOTES
DATE COMPLETED : 20 MARCH 2009
NO OF TAPES : 1XCD
NO OF PAGES : 13
IN THE LABOUR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DURBAN HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO : D860/06 DATE : 5 JANUARY 2009 BEFORE : PILLAY J APPLICANT : M NGOZWANA RESPONDENT : SAVELLâS FURNISHERS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : MR P JAFTA ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT : MS C NEL REPORT ON RECORDING Clear recording.
IN THE LABOUR COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF DURBAN
DATE : 5 JANUARY 2009
BEFORE : PILLAY J
APPLICANT : M NGOZWANA
RESPONDENT : SAVELLâS FURNISHERS
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT : MR P JAFTA
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT : MS C NEL
REPORT ON RECORDING Clear recording.