SATAWU obo Kigaoto and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR953/06) [2010] ZALCJHB 43 (14 June 2010)

SATAWU obo Kigaoto and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR953/06) [2010] ZALCJHB 43 (14 June 2010)

The court found that the commissioner considered the totality of the evidence and was alive to all the issues before him. The applicants were on duty during the theft, the alarm system was tested and found to be in working order, and the only exit was next to the guardhouse where the applicants were stationed. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALCJHB 43
Parties
Applicant: SATAWU obo Sergent Kigaoto & Two Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sipho Radebe N.O.; Respondent: Group 4 Securico (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2010
Case Number
JR953/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Application to review dismissed with costs against the applicant.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation for Late Filing, Substantive Fairness, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Condonation for Late Filing Substantive Fairness Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SATAWU obo Sergent Kigaoto & Two Others

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sipho Radebe N.O.

Respondent

Group 4 Securico (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioners award was reviewable under section 145 of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicants was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner failed to apply his mind to the evidence and issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner considered the totality of the evidence and was alive to all the issues before him. The applicants were on duty during the theft, the alarm system was tested and found to be in working order, and the only exit was next to the guardhouse where the applicants were stationed. The commissioners conclusion that it was improbable the applicants were unaware of the theft was rational. The grounds for review advanced by the applicants were without merit, and the commissioners award was not unreasonable. Both condonation applications were granted as they were unopposed and justified.

Court Disposition

Application to review dismissed with costs against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation for the late filing of the review application and the answering affidavit are granted.
  • The application to review is dismissed with costs.