Peremore-Oliver v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR301/22) [2024] ZALCPE 35 (1 August 2024)

Peremore-Oliver v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR301/22) [2024] ZALCPE 35 (1 August 2024)

The court found that the commissioner’s findings were not supported by the documentary and oral evidence. The evidence did not establish that the applicant instructed a permanent employee to give funds to a temporary employee, nor did it prove that she was negligent or in dereliction of duty. The commissioner failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCPE 35
Parties
Applicant: Jennilee Peremore-Oliver; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Faith Ncumisa Bantwini N.O.; Respondent: Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2024
Case Number
PR301/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application is granted. The arbitration award is set aside and substituted with an order declaring the dismissal substantively unfair. The applicant is reinstated retrospectively with full backpay.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Retrospective Reinstatement, Condonation of Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Retrospective Reinstatement Condonation of Late Filing

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

Parties

Jennilee Peremore-Oliver

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Faith Ncumisa Bantwini N.O.

Respondent

Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed gross irregularities in assessing the evidence and misconstrued the nature of the charges.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was guilty of financial misconduct, negligence, or dereliction of duty.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s findings were not supported by the documentary and oral evidence. The evidence did not establish that the applicant instructed a permanent employee to give funds to a temporary employee, nor did it prove that she was negligent or in dereliction of duty. The commissioner failed to apply her mind to the evidence, committed gross irregularities, and misconceived the nature of the enquiry. The applicant’s dismissal was therefore substantively unfair. The respondent failed to prove that reinstatement would be intolerable or impracticable, and did not provide grounds to deny retrospective reinstatement. The applicant is entitled to reinstatement with full...

Court Disposition

The review application is granted. The arbitration award is set aside and substituted with an order declaring the dismissal substantively unfair. The applicant is reinstated retrospectively with full backpay.

Orders

  • The late delivery of the review application is condoned.
  • The arbitration award issued by the second respondent dated 6 June 2022 under case number ECD091918 is reviewed and set aside.