Santam Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C912/15; C871/15) [2017] ZALCCT 29 (6 June 2017)

Santam Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C912/15; C871/15) [2017] ZALCCT 29 (6 June 2017)

The court found that the arbitrator's finding of guilt against the third respondent was not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the alleged dissemination of false and misleading information. The third respondent's understanding of statements made by management was reasonable given the context, and Santam failed to discharge the onus of proving the information was false. The refusal to order reinstatement was not justified under section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no evidence that continued employment would be intolerable or impracticable. The award was not one a reasonable commissioner could reach. The first review application by Santam was dismissed,...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 29
Parties
Applicant: Santam Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner L.O. Martin; Respondent: Kooganasen Theo Pillay
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
C912/15; C871/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Consolidated Review Applications
Outcome
The first review application is dismissed. The award of the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of the third respondent is declared procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Santam Limited is ordered to reinstate the third respondent without loss of benefits. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
G Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Labour Practice, Reinstatement, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Unfair Labour Practice Reinstatement Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santam Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner L.O. Martin

Respondent

Kooganasen Theo Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Consolidated Review Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the finding of guilt against the third respondent is supported by the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's refusal to order reinstatement as the primary remedy is consistent with section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the award of the second respondent is one that a reasonable commissioner could arrive at.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's finding of guilt against the third respondent was not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the alleged dissemination of false and misleading information. The third respondent's understanding of statements made by management was reasonable given the context, and Santam failed to discharge the onus of proving the information was false. The refusal to order reinstatement was not justified under section 193(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no evidence that continued employment would be intolerable or impracticable. The award was not one a reasonable commissioner could reach. The first review application by Santam was dismissed,...

Court Disposition

The first review application is dismissed. The award of the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of the third respondent is declared procedurally fair but substantively unfair. Santam Limited is ordered to reinstate the third respondent without loss of benefits. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The first review application is dismissed.
  • The award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an order that the dismissal of the third respondent is procedurally fair but substantively unfair.