South African Post Office v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D796/09) [2011] ZALCD 16 (19 August 2011)

South African Post Office v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D796/09) [2011] ZALCD 16 (19 August 2011)

The court found that the second respondent correctly placed the onus of proof on Ms Buthelezi and properly evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The commissioner considered the applicant's recruitment and selection policy, the vetting process, and the comparative qualifications and experience of Ms Buthelezi and Ms Zungu. The applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for not appointing Ms Buthelezi, who met all minimum requirements and was an internal candidate. The court held that the arbitration award was reasonable, free from gross irregularity, and that the applicant's criticisms were unfounded and unsupported by the record. The review application was dismissed, and...

Citation
[2011] ZALCD 16
Parties
Applicant: South African Post Office; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Subramoney V N. O.; Respondent: Buthelezi M N
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2011
Case Number
D796/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion of Employees, Review of Arbitration Award, Burden of Proof, Recruitment and Selection Policy
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Promotion of Employees Review of Arbitration Award Burden of Proof Recruitment and Selection Policy

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Post Office

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Subramoney V N. O.

Respondent

Buthelezi M N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent constitutes a gross irregularity and is reviewable under section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to appoint Ms Buthelezi to the Manager EAP/OD position constituted an unfair labour practice.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent applied the correct substantive law and evidentiary standards in the arbitration proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent correctly placed the onus of proof on Ms Buthelezi and properly evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The commissioner considered the applicant's recruitment and selection policy, the vetting process, and the comparative qualifications and experience of Ms Buthelezi and Ms Zungu. The applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for not appointing Ms Buthelezi, who met all minimum requirements and was an internal candidate. The court held that the arbitration award was reasonable, free from gross irregularity, and that the applicant's criticisms were unfounded and unsupported by the record. The review application was dismissed, and...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.