Ngozwane v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D860/06) [2009] ZALC 46 (25 February 2009)

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
Labour Law 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.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator found the applicant guilty of an offence for which she was not charged.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award is reviewable under the Sidumo standard.
  3. 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.