Saunders v Edenvale and Others (JR254/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 10 (18 October 2001)

Saunders v Edenvale and Others (JR254/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 10 (18 October 2001)

The court found that the commissioner did not exceed his powers and did apply his mind to the proceedings. The commissioner considered the relevant evidence, including the applicant’s refusal to accept a more suitable position, his inability to function as a service manager, and the absence of a suitable alternative position at the time of dismissal. The alleged failings raised by the applicant were either immaterial or had been considered and disregarded by the commissioner. The application was essentially an attempt to appeal the award, which is not permissible in review proceedings. The sanction of dismissal was justifiable under the circumstances.

Citation
[2001] ZALCJHB 10
Parties
Applicant: Robert Alan Saunders; Respondent: Arnold Chatz Edenvale; Respondent: Dispute Resolution Centre of the Motor Industry Bargaining Counsel; Respondent: Commissioner Russel Moletsani
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
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

Respondent

Dispute Resolution Centre of the Motor Industry Bargaining Counsel

Respondent

Commissioner Russel Moletsani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner exceeded his powers and failed to apply his mind to the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant for poor work performance was fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner ignored or downplayed material evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner did not exceed his powers and did apply his mind to the proceedings. The commissioner considered the relevant evidence, including the applicant’s refusal to accept a more suitable position, his inability to function as a service manager, and the absence of a suitable alternative position at the time of dismissal. The alleged failings raised by the applicant were either immaterial or had been considered and disregarded by the commissioner. The application was essentially an attempt to appeal the award, which is not permissible in review proceedings. The sanction of dismissal was justifiable under the circumstances.

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.