Rustenburg Platinum Mine Limited - Union Section v Viljoen and Others (JR77/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 132 (11 July 2013)

Rustenburg Platinum Mine Limited - Union Section v Viljoen and Others (JR77/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 132 (11 July 2013)

The court found that the commissioner’s finding of unfair dismissal was reasonable and justified by the discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence. However, the relief of reinstatement was irregular, as the First Respondent had expressly abandoned reinstatement at the commencement of arbitration. The court held that compensation equivalent to six months’ remuneration, as determined by the commissioner for back pay, was fair and reasonable. The award was corrected to reflect compensation rather than reinstatement, and no costs order was made due to partial success for both parties.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 132
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mine Limited – Union Section; Respondent: Viljoen, D.H.; Respondent: Ramotshela, Mathews, N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Case Number
JR77/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed in part and upheld in part; reinstatement relief set aside and replaced with compensation.
Judges
Baloyi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Compensation, Reinstatement Relief, Condonation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Compensation Reinstatement Relief Condonation

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

Rustenburg Platinum Mine Limited – Union Section

Applicant

Viljoen, D.H.

Respondent

Ramotshela, Mathews, N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable in respect of the relief of reinstatement granted to the First Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner properly weighed the evidence regarding the alleged racial remarks and the fairness of the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether compensation rather than reinstatement was the appropriate remedy given the First Respondent's abandonment of reinstatement relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s finding of unfair dismissal was reasonable and justified by the discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence. However, the relief of reinstatement was irregular, as the First Respondent had expressly abandoned reinstatement at the commencement of arbitration. The court held that compensation equivalent to six months’ remuneration, as determined by the commissioner for back pay, was fair and reasonable. The award was corrected to reflect compensation rather than reinstatement, and no costs order was made due to partial success for both parties.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed in part and upheld in part; reinstatement relief set aside and replaced with compensation.

Orders

  • The late filing of the review application and the First Respondent’s answering affidavit are condoned.
  • The review application is dismissed in part and upheld in part.