Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Union Section) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR570/2006) [2007] ZALCJHB 43 (2 July 2007)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Union Section) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR570/2006) [2007] ZALCJHB 43 (2 July 2007)

The court found that the second respondent's acceptance of the fourth respondent's bare denial, based solely on his past disciplinary record and in the face of corroborated evidence from two witnesses with no apparent motive to fabricate, was unjustifiable. The contradictions in the witnesses' evidence were immaterial to the central issue of whether a bribe was paid. The commissioner failed to properly weigh the probabilities and assess the evidence objectively. As a result, the arbitration award was susceptible to review and had to be set aside. The matter was referred back for a de novo hearing before a different commissioner, and costs were awarded against the third and fourth...

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 43
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Union Section); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Hlokwe, R N.O; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: Phofu, AM
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2007
Case Number
JR570/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was referred back for a de novo determination before a different commissioner. Costs were awarded against the third and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.
Judges
Ngalwana AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Back Pay, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Back Pay Costs Order

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 Mines Ltd (Union Section)

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Hlokwe, R N.O

Respondent

National Union of Mineworkers

Respondent

Phofu, AM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award made by the second respondent was susceptible to review on the grounds advanced by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the contradictions in the evidence of Matlale and Seleka were material to the finding of substantive unfairness.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent erred in granting back pay in excess of the statutory limit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent's acceptance of the fourth respondent's bare denial, based solely on his past disciplinary record and in the face of corroborated evidence from two witnesses with no apparent motive to fabricate, was unjustifiable. The contradictions in the witnesses' evidence were immaterial to the central issue of whether a bribe was paid. The commissioner failed to properly weigh the probabilities and assess the evidence objectively. As a result, the arbitration award was susceptible to review and had to be set aside. The matter was referred back for a de novo hearing before a different commissioner, and costs were awarded against the third and fourth...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The matter was referred back for a de novo determination before a different commissioner. Costs were awarded against the third and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The second respondent’s arbitration award dated 22 February 2006 under case number LP5752/2003 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the first respondent for a de novo determination before a different commissioner.