NUMSA and Another v CCMA and Others (J2816/98) [2001] ZALC 74; [2002] 7 BLLR 632 (LC) (23 May 2001)

NUMSA and Another v CCMA and Others (J2816/98) [2001] ZALC 74; [2002] 7 BLLR 632 (LC) (23 May 2001)

The court found that the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeding her powers. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that a dismissal had occurred. The facts presented did not establish that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer. The arbitrator's decision was rational and properly made. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 74
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA; Applicant: Mothobi Joseph; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: A Heyns; Respondent: Mazal Diamond Mine
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2001
Case Number
J2816/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof in Dismissal, Misconduct of Arbitrator
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof in Dismissal Misconduct of Arbitrator

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

NUMSA

Applicant

Mothobi Joseph

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

A Heyns

Respondent

Mazal Diamond Mine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeded her powers in making the award.
  2. 2 Whether the second applicant discharged the onus of proving the existence of a dismissal under section 192(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the facts before the arbitrator amounted to a dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeding her powers. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that a dismissal had occurred. The facts presented did not establish that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer. The arbitrator's decision was rational and properly made. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.