Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited (Rustenburg Section) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1438/01) [2005] ZALC 69 (22 April 2005)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited (Rustenburg Section) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1438/01) [2005] ZALC 69 (22 April 2005)

The court found that the 2nd respondent committed a gross irregularity by failing to properly consider the evidence that the 3% variance standard was a well-established workplace rule, communicated and enforced by the applicant. The arbitrator became distracted by the technical application of Regulation 13.5.3 and failed to appreciate the inferential reasoning supporting the applicant's case for intentional falsification. The arbitrator also neglected to assess the credibility of the respondents, despite evidence of evasiveness. On procedural fairness, the court held that the findings of unfairness were based on technicalities without substantive evidence of bias or procedural...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 69
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited (Rustenburg Section); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lebea J N, NO; Respondent: Workers Rights Association; Respondent: Ramosepele L; Respondent: Bingle M
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2005
Case Number
JR1438/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside; the matter is referred for arbitration de novo before a different commissioner; costs are awarded against the 4th and 5th respondents.
Judges
Stelzner
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Disciplinary Code, Gross Irregularity
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Disciplinary Code Gross Irregularity

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

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited (Rustenburg Section)

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lebea J N, NO

Respondent

Workers Rights Association

Respondent

Ramosepele L

Respondent

Bingle M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable due to gross irregularity or failure to apply mind to the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissals of the 4th and 5th respondents were substantively and procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd respondent failed to properly assess evidence and credibility of witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd respondent committed a gross irregularity by failing to properly consider the evidence that the 3% variance standard was a well-established workplace rule, communicated and enforced by the applicant. The arbitrator became distracted by the technical application of Regulation 13.5.3 and failed to appreciate the inferential reasoning supporting the applicant's case for intentional falsification. The arbitrator also neglected to assess the credibility of the respondents, despite evidence of evasiveness. On procedural fairness, the court held that the findings of unfairness were based on technicalities without substantive evidence of bias or procedural...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside; the matter is referred for arbitration de novo before a different commissioner; costs are awarded against the 4th and 5th respondents.

Orders

  • The arbitration award made by the 2nd respondent on or about 12 July 2001 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the 1st respondent for arbitration de novo by a commissioner other than the 2nd respondent.