NUMSA and Others v CCMA and Others (J1939/99) [2000] ZALC 90 (1 September 2000)

NUMSA and Others v CCMA and Others (J1939/99) [2000] ZALC 90 (1 September 2000)

The court found that the commissioner did not commit a gross irregularity by clarifying evidence and probing the credibility of the second applicant. The commissioner acted within her statutory powers under section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act, which allows for a robust approach to arbitration proceedings. The acceptance of submissions from the bar was not material or disputed and did not invalidate the award. The commissioner’s findings were based on the evidence led, particularly the testimony of Mr Minnaar, and the second applicant failed to advance a credible defence. The conduct of the proceedings was consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the reasons for the...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 90
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA and Others; Respondent: CCMA and Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2000
Case Number
J1939/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Ccma Review, Gross Irregularity, Arbitration Procedure, Credibility Assessment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Ccma Review Gross Irregularity Arbitration Procedure Credibility Assessment

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA and Others

Applicant

CCMA and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by descending into the arena and aggressively cross-examining the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner failed to take material evidence into account or made findings on evidence not led.
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of submissions from the bar vitiated the arbitration award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner did not commit a gross irregularity by clarifying evidence and probing the credibility of the second applicant. The commissioner acted within her statutory powers under section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act, which allows for a robust approach to arbitration proceedings. The acceptance of submissions from the bar was not material or disputed and did not invalidate the award. The commissioner’s findings were based on the evidence led, particularly the testimony of Mr Minnaar, and the second applicant failed to advance a credible defence. The conduct of the proceedings was consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the reasons for the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.