Ngozwane v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D860/06) [2009] ZALCD 28 (25 February 2009)

Ngozwane v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (D860/06) [2009] ZALCD 28 (25 February 2009)

The Court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding the applicant guilty of dishonesty, as the charge was sufficiently broad to encompass her conduct in changing the deal on the computer to defraud the company. The applicant did not dispute the factual basis of the charge and failed to provide any credible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALCD 28
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 Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Case Number
D860/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Dishonesty in Employment, Review of Arbitration Award, Disciplinary Procedure, Fairness in Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Dishonesty in Employment Review of Arbitration Award Disciplinary Procedure Fairness in Dismissal

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 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 / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator found the applicant guilty of an offence for which she was not charged.
  2. 2 Whether the charge of dishonesty/fraud was sufficiently wide to encompass the conduct found by the arbitrator.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award is reviewable under the Sidumo standard.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the arbitrator was correct in finding the applicant guilty of dishonesty, as the charge was sufficiently broad to encompass her conduct in changing the deal on the computer to defraud the company. The applicant did not dispute the factual basis of the charge and failed to provide any credible explanation for her actions at any stage of the proceedings. The Court found no basis to review the arbitration award under the Sidumo standard, as there was nothing unreasonable in the arbitrator's decision. 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.