Raboroko v Kekana (JR1953-19) [2024] ZALCJHB 68 (21 February 2024)

Raboroko v Kekana (JR1953-19) [2024] ZALCJHB 68 (21 February 2024)

The court found that the Commissioner properly analysed the evidence and considered the seriousness of the offence, including the element of misrepresentation and dishonesty. The Commissioner was presented with two mutually exclusive versions and, after assessing the evidence, preferred the Third Respondent's version. The test for review is whether the decision is one that no reasonable arbitrator could reach, as set out in section 145(2) of the LRA and clarified in Sidumo and Herholdt. The court concluded that there were no grounds to justify the review of the award, as the findings of fact were supported by the evidence. The Applicant's review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 68
Parties
Applicant: Tshepo Ezekiel Raboroko; Respondent: Nancy Kekana N.O.; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC); Respondent: Polyoak Packaging (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Case Number
JR1953/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The Applicant's review application is dismissed.
Judges
N Makopo
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Dishonesty, Gross Irregularity, Test for Review, Dismissal for Misconduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Dishonesty Gross Irregularity Test for Review Dismissal for Misconduct

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepo Ezekiel Raboroko

Applicant

Nancy Kekana N.O.

Respondent

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC)

Respondent

Polyoak Packaging (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the First Respondent is reviewable under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner failed to apply her mind to the evidence and the probabilities of the Applicant's version.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner properly analysed the evidence and considered the seriousness of the offence, including the element of misrepresentation and dishonesty. The Commissioner was presented with two mutually exclusive versions and, after assessing the evidence, preferred the Third Respondent's version. The test for review is whether the decision is one that no reasonable arbitrator could reach, as set out in section 145(2) of the LRA and clarified in Sidumo and Herholdt. The court concluded that there were no grounds to justify the review of the award, as the findings of fact were supported by the evidence. The Applicant's review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.