NUM v Haffegee and Another (J742/01) [2001] ZALC 39 (13 March 2001)

NUM v Haffegee and Another (J742/01) [2001] ZALC 39 (13 March 2001)

The court found that although the arbitrator's interpretation of the outsourcing agreement was incorrect, this error did not amount to misconduct or gross irregularity as required by section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The agreement was poorly drafted and confusing, and the arbitrator's interpretation was compatible with its language, even if contrary to its purpose. The union failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief sought, as there was no basis to infer misconduct from the arbitrator's error. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 39
Parties
Applicant: NUM; Respondent: I Haffegee; Respondent: Tubatse Fenochrome Mines
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2001
Case Number
J742/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause of the application for final relief.
Judges
Trengove
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Retrenchment, Outsourcing Agreement, Prima Facie Right, Interim Interdict
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Review Retrenchment Outsourcing Agreement Prima Facie Right Interim Interdict

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUM

Applicant

I Haffegee

Respondent

Tubatse Fenochrome Mines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the union has established a prima facie right to interim relief pending review of the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's interpretation of the outsourcing agreement was manifestly wrong and amounts to misconduct under section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the outsourcing agreement applies to all forms of contracting out or only to certain defined types.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the arbitrator's interpretation of the outsourcing agreement was incorrect, this error did not amount to misconduct or gross irregularity as required by section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The agreement was poorly drafted and confusing, and the arbitrator's interpretation was compatible with its language, even if contrary to its purpose. The union failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief sought, as there was no basis to infer misconduct from the arbitrator's error. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause of the application for final relief.

Orders

  • The application for the relief claimed in part A of the applicant's notice of motion is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application for the relief claimed in part A of the notice of motion are to be costs in the cause of the application for the relief claimed in part B of the notice of motion.