Technikon South Africa v Mojela and Others (JR 1614/2002) [2003] ZALC 80; (2003) 24 ILJ 1737 (LC); [2003] 10 BLLR 1075 (LC) (11 July 2003)

Technikon South Africa v Mojela and Others (JR 1614/2002) [2003] ZALC 80; (2003) 24 ILJ 1737 (LC); [2003] 10 BLLR 1075 (LC) (11 July 2003)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was fundamentally flawed both in law and in fact. The arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the offer of reinstatement, the back pay received, and the amendments to section 194(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The first respondent's refusal to accept reinstatement was unreasonable and not satisfactorily explained. The arbitrator provided no adequate reasons for awarding maximum compensation, and his understanding of employment law was incorrect. The court held that the employer had remedied its initial error by offering unconditional reinstatement, and the employee's refusal to return to work was not justified....

Citation
[2003] ZALC 80
Parties
Applicant: Technikon South Africa; Respondent: Mojela, Sameul P; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mr Ralefatane
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2003
Case Number
JR 1614/2002
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside; first respondent not entitled to compensation.
Judges
P.A.L. Gamble
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Compensation, Arbitration Review, Section 194 Lra
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Compensation Arbitration Review Section 194 Lra

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Technikon South Africa

Applicant

Mojela, Sameul P

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mr Ralefatane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award of compensation for unfair dismissal was justified on the evidence and law.
  2. 2 Whether the offer of reinstatement by the employer precluded the employee from claiming compensation.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator correctly applied section 194(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was fundamentally flawed both in law and in fact. The arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the offer of reinstatement, the back pay received, and the amendments to section 194(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The first respondent's refusal to accept reinstatement was unreasonable and not satisfactorily explained. The arbitrator provided no adequate reasons for awarding maximum compensation, and his understanding of employment law was incorrect. The court held that the employer had remedied its initial error by offering unconditional reinstatement, and the employee's refusal to return to work was not justified....

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside; first respondent not entitled to compensation.

Orders

  • The arbitration award handed down by the third respondent under case number GA 29288/02 dated 19 August 2002 is reviewed and set aside and substituted with: 'The first respondent is not entitled to any compensation arising out of his dismissal by the applicant on 28 November 2001.'
  • No order as to costs.