South African Rugby Union v Watson and Others (CA17/2017) [2018] ZALAC 57; (2019) 40 ILJ 1052 (LAC); [2019] 7 BLLR 638 (LAC) (11 October 2018)

South African Rugby Union v Watson and Others (CA17/2017) [2018] ZALAC 57; (2019) 40 ILJ 1052 (LAC); [2019] 7 BLLR 638 (LAC) (11 October 2018)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court erred by substituting its own view for that of the arbitrator and treating the review as an appeal rather than applying the correct review test. Both the arbitrator and the Labour Court found the first respondent guilty of serious misconduct, including abusive and inappropriate language and behaviour that brought the employer into disrepute and caused a breakdown in relationships. The arbitrator considered the disciplinary code and concluded that progressive discipline was not justified due to the respondent's lack of remorse and unwillingness to change. The Court found that, on the totality of the evidence, a reasonable decision-maker...

Citation
[2018] ZALAC 57
Parties
Appellant: South African Rugby Union; Respondent: Andre Watson; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Joseph Wilson Thee
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
CA17/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Reviewing Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; review application dismissed.
Judges
D Davis, R Sutherland, J Murphy
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Progressive Discipline, Incompatibility, Misconduct, Dismissal, Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Progressive Discipline Incompatibility Misconduct Dismissal Labour Relations Act

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Rugby Union

Appellant

Andre Watson

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Joseph Wilson Thee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Reviewing Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court erred in setting aside the arbitrator's award of dismissal and substituting a lesser sanction.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the employee was one that a reasonable decision-maker could have made on the facts.
  3. 3 Whether progressive discipline was required before dismissal in the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court erred by substituting its own view for that of the arbitrator and treating the review as an appeal rather than applying the correct review test. Both the arbitrator and the Labour Court found the first respondent guilty of serious misconduct, including abusive and inappropriate language and behaviour that brought the employer into disrepute and caused a breakdown in relationships. The arbitrator considered the disciplinary code and concluded that progressive discipline was not justified due to the respondent's lack of remorse and unwillingness to change. The Court found that, on the totality of the evidence, a reasonable decision-maker...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside.
  • The review application is dismissed.