Sunbake Bakery Rustenburg v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1899/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 312 (14 November 2019)

Sunbake Bakery Rustenburg v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1899/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 312 (14 November 2019)

The court found that the Commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry by declining to evaluate the evidence relating to the charges of gross insolence and insubordination, instead making a value judgment about the employer's failure to address a grievance. This failure to properly apply his mind to material considerations led to a reviewable irregularity. The dispute was remitted to the CCMA for rehearing before a different Commissioner, as credibility findings would be required and reliance on the record would be inappropriate. No costs order was made due to the fourth respondent being an individual defending the award.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 312
Parties
Applicant: Sunbake Bakery Rustenburg; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Kenneth Dlamini; Respondent: NUFBWSAW; Respondent: Kumo Sehunoe
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
JR 1899/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside; the dispute is remitted to the CCMA for rehearing before a different Commissioner.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunbake Bakery Rustenburg

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Kenneth Dlamini

Respondent

NUFBWSAW

Respondent

Kumo Sehunoe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Commissioner misconceive the nature of the enquiry in the arbitration award?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal of the fourth respondent procedurally and substantively fair?
  3. 3 Should the arbitration award be set aside and the dispute remitted for rehearing?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry by declining to evaluate the evidence relating to the charges of gross insolence and insubordination, instead making a value judgment about the employer's failure to address a grievance. This failure to properly apply his mind to material considerations led to a reviewable irregularity. The dispute was remitted to the CCMA for rehearing before a different Commissioner, as credibility findings would be required and reliance on the record would be inappropriate. No costs order was made due to the fourth respondent being an individual defending the award.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside; the dispute is remitted to the CCMA for rehearing before a different Commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award under case number NWRB92-16 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute is remitted to the first respondent for re-hearing before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.