South African Revenue Service v Sono and Others (JR 343/06) [2007] ZALC 156 (23 February 2007)

South African Revenue Service v Sono and Others (JR 343/06) [2007] ZALC 156 (23 February 2007)

The court found that the commissioner failed to apply his mind to the evidence presented, ignored relevant oral and documentary evidence, and relied on irrelevant considerations, including the absence of video footage and the inconsistent sanction in the Malahlela case. The commissioner did not explain why the applicant's evidence was rejected and improperly considered issues raised only in closing argument without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond. The award was not rationally justifiable and was not connected to the evidence before the commissioner. Consequently, the arbitration award was reviewed and set aside.

Citation
[2007] ZALC 156
Parties
Applicant: South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Vusi Sono; Respondent: National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: B. Mbovane; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Case Number
JR 343/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award Under Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Inconsistency of Sanction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Inconsistency of Sanction

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Revenue Service

Applicant

Vusi Sono

Respondent

National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

B. Mbovane

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award Under Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner ignored relevant evidence in finding the dismissal substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner relied on irrelevant considerations, including issues raised only in closing argument.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award is rationally justifiable on the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner failed to apply his mind to the evidence presented, ignored relevant oral and documentary evidence, and relied on irrelevant considerations, including the absence of video footage and the inconsistent sanction in the Malahlela case. The commissioner did not explain why the applicant's evidence was rejected and improperly considered issues raised only in closing argument without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond. The award was not rationally justifiable and was not connected to the evidence before the commissioner. Consequently, the arbitration award was reviewed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The award issued by the third respondent on 4 November 2005 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs.