NUM obo Malapane and Others v CCMA and Others (JR1169/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 295 (10 September 2015)

NUM obo Malapane and Others v CCMA and Others (JR1169/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 295 (10 September 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the commissioner’s award was unreasonable. The evidence before the commissioner, including consistent testimony from the third respondent’s witnesses and the employees’ bare denial, supported the finding of misconduct. The applicant’s reliance on alleged irregularities did not meet the threshold for review, as the outcome was reasonable on the facts presented. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 295
Parties
Applicant: NUM obo Philip Malapane & 2 Others; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: L Sikwane N.O.; Respondent: Wanli Stone Belfast (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2015
Case Number
JR1169/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment Delivered After Unopposed Review Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Misconduct, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness Threshold
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Misconduct Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness Threshold

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

NUM obo Philip Malapane & 2 Others

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

L Sikwane N.O.

Respondent

Wanli Stone Belfast (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment Delivered After Unopposed Review Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed reviewable misconduct in the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
  3. 3 Whether the employees were fairly dismissed for misconduct during a strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the commissioner’s award was unreasonable. The evidence before the commissioner, including consistent testimony from the third respondent’s witnesses and the employees’ bare denial, supported the finding of misconduct. The applicant’s reliance on alleged irregularities did not meet the threshold for review, as the outcome was reasonable on the facts presented. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.