Pieterse v Majila NO and Others (C296/2005) [2009] ZALC 260 (10 March 2009)

Pieterse v Majila NO and Others (C296/2005) [2009] ZALC 260 (10 March 2009)

The court found that the commissioner did not provide adequate reasons for ordering re-employment instead of reinstatement, but upon review of the evidence and the rescission ruling, it was clear that the commissioner considered the applicant's long service and the nature of the misconduct. The applicant was found guilty of the charges, particularly the first and second, and the commissioner was entitled to consider mitigating factors. The decision to order re-employment was not unreasonable or one that no reasonable decision maker could have reached. The application for review of the award was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 260
Parties
Applicant: Jurie Pietersen; Respondent: Abel Vumile Majila NO; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eskom: North West Region: Kimberly
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2009
Case Number
C296/2005
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Re Employment, Arbitration Award Review, Misconduct, Section 193 Lra
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Re Employment Arbitration Award Review Misconduct Section 193 Lra

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jurie Pietersen

Applicant

Abel Vumile Majila NO

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Eskom: North West Region: Kimberly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award ordering re-employment instead of reinstatement was reasonable and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner failed to apply his mind to the evidence and legal principles.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement under section 193 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner did not provide adequate reasons for ordering re-employment instead of reinstatement, but upon review of the evidence and the rescission ruling, it was clear that the commissioner considered the applicant's long service and the nature of the misconduct. The applicant was found guilty of the charges, particularly the first and second, and the commissioner was entitled to consider mitigating factors. The decision to order re-employment was not unreasonable or one that no reasonable decision maker could have reached. The application for review of the award was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review the ruling issued by the first respondent is dismissed.
  • No costs order is made.