NUMSA obo Ramothibe and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1655/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 300; [2024] 10 BLLR 1069 (LC) (5 August 2024)

NUMSA obo Ramothibe and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1655/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 300; [2024] 10 BLLR 1069 (LC) (5 August 2024)

The court found that the disciplinary hearing was procedurally unfair as the applicants were excluded from the venue and not afforded a reasonable opportunity to state their case. The chairperson failed to consider alternatives to exclusion and did not invite written submissions, thereby depriving the applicants of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 300
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA obo Ramothibe & 55 Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Dialwa Alpheus Mathala N.O.; Respondent: Universal Tissue (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2024
Case Number
JR1655/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and replaced with order of reinstatement and back-pay.
Judges
L. de Haan
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Common Purpose, Protected Strike, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal, Picketing Rules Breach
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Common Purpose Protected Strike Remedies for Unfair Dismissal Picketing Rules Breach

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA obo Ramothibe & 55 Others

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Dialwa Alpheus Mathala N.O.

Respondent

Universal Tissue (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary hearing was procedurally fair in light of the applicants being excluded from the venue.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's finding of substantive fairness was reasonable given the lack of identification of individual applicants in the alleged misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied to justify the dismissals.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disciplinary hearing was procedurally unfair as the applicants were excluded from the venue and not afforded a reasonable opportunity to state their case. The chairperson failed to consider alternatives to exclusion and did not invite written submissions, thereby depriving the applicants of their right to be heard. On substantive fairness, the arbitrator erred in applying the doctrine of common purpose by inferring guilt from mere participation in the protected strike without identifying individual complicity in the alleged misconduct. The evidence did not establish that any of the individual applicants were involved in or associated with the offending acts. The...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and replaced with order of reinstatement and back-pay.

Orders

  • The arbitration award under case reference GAEK6682-20 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The individual applicants' dismissals are declared procedurally and substantively unfair.