St. Michaels Sands Hotel v Setilaone (D227/98) [1998] ZALC 26 (12 June 1998)

St. Michaels Sands Hotel v Setilaone (D227/98) [1998] ZALC 26 (12 June 1998)

The court found that there was no evidence that Ms Ngcobo accepted the cheque or that a settlement agreement was reached. The Commissioner did not rely on evidence improperly presented, and no gross irregularity occurred. The applicant failed to meet the strict test for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The discretion of CCMA Commissioners should not be fettered by the Labour Court unless clear grounds for review exist. Accordingly, the application to set aside the ruling was dismissed.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 26
Parties
Applicant: St Michaels Sands Hotel; Respondent: Hotel and Allied Restaurant Workers Union of South Africa; Respondent: Mr S Setilaone
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 1998
Case Number
D227/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Ccma Review, Unfair Dismissal, Settlement Agreement, Gross Irregularity
Labour Law Ccma Review Unfair Dismissal Settlement Agreement Gross Irregularity

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

Parties

St Michaels Sands Hotel

Applicant

Hotel and Allied Restaurant Workers Union of South Africa

Respondent

Mr S Setilaone

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA Commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in finding that no settlement agreement was reached between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the ruling by the second respondent should be set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence that Ms Ngcobo accepted the cheque or that a settlement agreement was reached. The Commissioner did not rely on evidence improperly presented, and no gross irregularity occurred. The applicant failed to meet the strict test for review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The discretion of CCMA Commissioners should not be fettered by the Labour Court unless clear grounds for review exist. Accordingly, the application to set aside the ruling was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the ruling of the second respondent is dismissed.