Rowans Construction v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR229/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 25 (3 August 2002)

Rowans Construction v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR229/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 25 (3 August 2002)

The court found that the arbitrator's conduct, specifically engaging in an intense discussion with the third respondent during a break and failing to interact with the applicant's representatives, constituted gross misconduct. The arbitrator's refusal to recuse himself and the presence of factual inaccuracies and biased statements in the award further demonstrated a lack of impartiality. These procedural irregularities undermined the fairness of the arbitration process. Consequently, the award was set aside and the dispute referred for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 25
Parties
Applicant: Rowans Construction; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Matee D, NO; Respondent: Loggenberg A M
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2002
Case Number
JR229/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Unopposed Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for fresh arbitration.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Commissioner Bias, Recusal Application
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Commissioner Bias Recusal Application

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 A M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Unopposed Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed gross misconduct during the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's conduct and statements demonstrated bias against the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside due to procedural irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's conduct, specifically engaging in an intense discussion with the third respondent during a break and failing to interact with the applicant's representatives, constituted gross misconduct. The arbitrator's refusal to recuse himself and the presence of factual inaccuracies and biased statements in the award further demonstrated a lack of impartiality. These procedural irregularities undermined the fairness of the arbitration process. Consequently, the award was set aside and the dispute referred for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside and dispute referred for fresh arbitration.

Orders

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