Pick 'n Pay (Bloemgate) v Rampai NO and Others (JR108/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 132 (28 March 2018)

Pick 'n Pay (Bloemgate) v Rampai NO and Others (JR108/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 132 (28 March 2018)

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator failed to properly address the applicant's repeated requests for a postponement to call the cash office supervisor, whose evidence was crucial to determining the calculation of the alleged cash shortage. The arbitrator's assumption that the applicant should have foreseen the need for the supervisor's testimony was unreasonable, given that the dispute over the amount only arose at the arbitration. This failure constituted a reviewable irregularity that deprived the applicant of a fair hearing and materially affected the outcome. The award was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing, limited to additional evidence regarding the calculation...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 132
Parties
Applicant: Pick 'n Pay (Bloemgate); Respondent: Rampai, N (N.O.); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: NUPSAW obo Sophie Mokoena
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
JR108/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted for rehearing before a different arbitrator. The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's wasted costs of the postponed hearing.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Gross Negligence, Disciplinary Code, Reinstatement, Costs of Postponement

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pick 'n Pay (Bloemgate)

Applicant

Rampai, N (N.O.)

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

NUPSAW obo Sophie Mokoena

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by failing to address the applicant's request for a postponement to call a crucial witness.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of Ms Mokoena was substantively fair given the evidence presented regarding the cash shortage.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should bear the wasted costs of the postponed hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator failed to properly address the applicant's repeated requests for a postponement to call the cash office supervisor, whose evidence was crucial to determining the calculation of the alleged cash shortage. The arbitrator's assumption that the applicant should have foreseen the need for the supervisor's testimony was unreasonable, given that the dispute over the amount only arose at the arbitration. This failure constituted a reviewable irregularity that deprived the applicant of a fair hearing and materially affected the outcome. The award was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing, limited to additional evidence regarding the calculation...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted for rehearing before a different arbitrator. The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's wasted costs of the postponed hearing.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued on 17 November 2014 under case no FSBF 4624-14 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a hearing de novo before an arbitrator other than the first respondent, to be convened within 30 days of receipt of this order, limited to the record of the original hearing and additional evidence regarding the calculation of the alleged shortage and the...