Rowans Construction v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 229/01) [2002] ZALC 161 (3 August 2002)

Rowans Construction v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 229/01) [2002] ZALC 161 (3 August 2002)

The court found that the arbitrator's conduct during the arbitration proceedings, specifically the intense discussion with the third respondent during a break and the lack of engagement with the applicant's representatives, constituted gross misconduct and created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The arbitrator's refusal to recuse himself and the factual inaccuracies in the award further supported the applicant's complaint. Consequently, the arbitration award was set aside and the dispute was referred to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 161
Parties
Applicant: Rowans Construction; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Matee D, NO; Respondent: Loggenberg AM
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2002
Case Number
JR 229/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for arbitration before a different commissioner.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Perceived Bias, Recusal of Arbitrator
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Perceived Bias Recusal of Arbitrator

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowans Construction

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Matee D, NO

Respondent

Loggenberg AM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed gross misconduct during the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside due to perceived bias and procedural irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute should be referred for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's conduct during the arbitration proceedings, specifically the intense discussion with the third respondent during a break and the lack of engagement with the applicant's representatives, constituted gross misconduct and created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The arbitrator's refusal to recuse himself and the factual inaccuracies in the award further supported the applicant's complaint. Consequently, the arbitration award was set aside and the dispute was referred to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The award made by the second respondent is set aside.
  • The dispute is referred to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner.