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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the dismissal of Ms Mokoena was substantively fair given the evidence presented regarding the cash shortage.
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment