Saunders v Arnold Chatz Edenvale and Others (JR254/01) [2001] ZALC 179 (18 October 2001)

Saunders v Arnold Chatz Edenvale and Others (JR254/01) [2001] ZALC 179 (18 October 2001)

The court found that the commissioner had considered the relevant evidence and that the alleged failings raised by the applicant were either immaterial, had been considered and disregarded, or amounted to an attempt to appeal the award rather than a proper review. The applicant was offered an alternative position more suited to his skills, which he refused without explanation. The evidence supported the commissioner's finding that the dismissal was fair, given the applicant's inability to function as a service manager and the absence of a suitable alternative position at the time of dismissal. The application to review and set aside the arbitration award was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 179
Parties
Applicant: Robert Alan Saunders; Respondent: Arnold Chatz Edenvale & Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2001
Case Number
JR254/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Poor Performance, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Code of Good Practice, Alternative Position Offer
Labour Law Dismissal for Poor Performance Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Code of Good Practice Alternative Position Offer

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Alan Saunders

Applicant

Arnold Chatz Edenvale & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by failing to apply his mind to the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant for poor work performance was fair under the Labour Relations Act and its Code of Good Practice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was offered and refused a suitable alternative position prior to dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner had considered the relevant evidence and that the alleged failings raised by the applicant were either immaterial, had been considered and disregarded, or amounted to an attempt to appeal the award rather than a proper review. The applicant was offered an alternative position more suited to his skills, which he refused without explanation. The evidence supported the commissioner's finding that the dismissal was fair, given the applicant's inability to function as a service manager and the absence of a suitable alternative position at the time of dismissal. The application to review and set aside the arbitration award was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.