Rand Water v Legodi NO and Others (JR2001/05) [2006] ZALC 60; (2006) 27 ILJ 1933 (LC) (9 May 2006)

Rand Water v Legodi NO and Others (JR2001/05) [2006] ZALC 60; (2006) 27 ILJ 1933 (LC) (9 May 2006)

The court held that the arbitrator erred in law by rejecting the transcript of the disciplinary hearing entirely as hearsay evidence and failing to exercise her discretion judiciously regarding its admissibility. The arbitrator did not properly weigh the transcript in conjunction with the oral evidence, nor did she assess the circumstances under which hearsay may be admitted as required by section 3 of the Evidence Law Amendment Act. This error resulted in an unfair trial for the applicant. The court found that the arbitrator set an unreasonably high standard for procedural fairness and that the dismissal was not procedurally unfair. The award was set aside and the dispute remitted for...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 60
Parties
Applicant: Rand Water; Respondent: M. Legodi N.O; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Director of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: SAMWU obo M. Maduna
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2006
Case Number
JR2001/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Award set aside; dispute remitted for rehearing before a different arbitrator.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Admissibility of Hearsay, Procedural Fairness, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Admissibility of Hearsay Procedural Fairness Arbitration Review

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

Parties

Rand Water

Applicant

M. Legodi N.O

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Director of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

SAMWU obo M. Maduna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator erred in law by rejecting the transcript of the disciplinary hearing as hearsay evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of Mr Maduna was procedurally and substantively unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside and the dispute remitted for rehearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator erred in law by rejecting the transcript of the disciplinary hearing entirely as hearsay evidence and failing to exercise her discretion judiciously regarding its admissibility. The arbitrator did not properly weigh the transcript in conjunction with the oral evidence, nor did she assess the circumstances under which hearsay may be admitted as required by section 3 of the Evidence Law Amendment Act. This error resulted in an unfair trial for the applicant. The court found that the arbitrator set an unreasonably high standard for procedural fairness and that the dismissal was not procedurally unfair. The award was set aside and the dispute remitted for...

Court Disposition

Award set aside; dispute remitted for rehearing before a different arbitrator.

Orders

  • The award of the first respondent (Ms M Legodi) is hereby set aside.
  • The dispute is remitted to the second respondent to be arbitrated by a different arbitrator.