Samancor Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1061/2007) [2008] ZALCJHB 24 (1 July 2008)

Samancor Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1061/2007) [2008] ZALCJHB 24 (1 July 2008)

The court held that the commissioner did not commit any reviewable irregularity in finding the dismissal of the third respondent both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicant failed to follow its own disciplinary code and did not properly investigate the duration or circumstances of the third...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 24
Parties
Applicant: Samancor Limited; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Jan Stemmett N.O.; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers obo Johannes Maloma
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2008
Case Number
JR1061/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Incapacity, Supervening Impossibility, Procedural Fairness, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Incapacity Supervening Impossibility Procedural Fairness Arbitration Review

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Samancor Limited

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Jan Stemmett N.O.

Respondent

National Union of Mineworkers obo Johannes Maloma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether operational incapacity is a valid ground for dismissal under South African labour law.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in his award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner did not commit any reviewable irregularity in finding the dismissal of the third respondent both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicant failed to follow its own disciplinary code and did not properly investigate the duration or circumstances of the third respondent's absence, which was beyond his control due to detention. Operational incapacity is not recognised as a valid ground for dismissal under South African law unless related to ill health or injury. The commissioner correctly applied the principles of supervening impossibility and the requirements for fair dismissal for incapacity. The award of reinstatement was reasonable and...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.