Sibeko and Others v CCMA and Others (JR2819/11) [2020] ZALCJHB 6 (21 January 2020)

Sibeko and Others v CCMA and Others (JR2819/11) [2020] ZALCJHB 6 (21 January 2020)

The court found that the applicants were afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, as the employer notified the union and arranged a mass disciplinary hearing chaired by a neutral party. The applicants were aware of the hearing but did not communicate their transport difficulties to the employer, nor did they seek to engage further regarding the disciplinary process. The evidence identifying the applicants as participants in the misconduct was uncontested and credible. The grounds of review raised by the applicants were found to be without merit, amounting to grounds of appeal rather than review. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s findings that the dismissals...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 6
Parties
Applicant: Sakhele Petros Sibeko & 3 Others; Respondent: The CCMA; Respondent: Carl Mischke N.O.; Respondent: Dunlop Belting Products (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Case Number
JR2819/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The review application was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.
Judges
S B Hardie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Collective Misconduct, Protected Strike, Identification of Employees
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Collective Misconduct Protected Strike Identification of Employees

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakhele Petros Sibeko & 3 Others

Applicant

The CCMA

Respondent

Carl Mischke N.O.

Respondent

Dunlop Belting Products (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissals were procedurally fair given the manner in which the disciplinary hearings were convened.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were substantively fairly dismissed based on the evidence presented.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were properly identified as participants in the misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, as the employer notified the union and arranged a mass disciplinary hearing chaired by a neutral party. The applicants were aware of the hearing but did not communicate their transport difficulties to the employer, nor did they seek to engage further regarding the disciplinary process. The evidence identifying the applicants as participants in the misconduct was uncontested and credible. The grounds of review raised by the applicants were found to be without merit, amounting to grounds of appeal rather than review. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s findings that the dismissals...

Court Disposition

The review application was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

Orders

  • The applicants’ review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.