Shoprite Checkers v CCMA and Others (JR421/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 8 (31 May 2001)

Shoprite Checkers v CCMA and Others (JR421/01) [2001] ZALCJHB 8 (31 May 2001)

The court found that the applicant's failure to file the rule 7A(8) notice was a bona fide error and condonation was warranted. The commissioner exceeded his powers by deciding on procedural fairness, which was not an issue before him, and made a gross mistake regarding the identity of the disciplinary hearing chairperson. The record was so poor that crucial evidence was missing, further justifying review. The award was set aside and the matter remitted for arbitration before another commissioner. No costs order was made due to the lack of merit in some of the applicant's complaints.

Citation
[2001] ZALCJHB 8
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Checkers; Respondent: CCMA and Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2001
Case Number
JR421/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for fresh arbitration before another commissioner; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Misconduct Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Misconduct Dismissal

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers

Applicant

CCMA and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late filing of the rule 7A(8) notice should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exceeded his powers by deciding on procedural fairness not raised by the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside due to gross irregularity and misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's failure to file the rule 7A(8) notice was a bona fide error and condonation was warranted. The commissioner exceeded his powers by deciding on procedural fairness, which was not an issue before him, and made a gross mistake regarding the identity of the disciplinary hearing chairperson. The record was so poor that crucial evidence was missing, further justifying review. The award was set aside and the matter remitted for arbitration before another commissioner. No costs order was made due to the lack of merit in some of the applicant's complaints.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for fresh arbitration before another commissioner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the first respondent to be arbitrated by another commissioner.