Telkom SA Ltd v CCMA and Others (JR1863/01) [2002] ZALC 170; [2003] 1 BLLR 92 (LC) (6 September 2002)

Telkom SA Ltd v CCMA and Others (JR1863/01) [2002] ZALC 170; [2003] 1 BLLR 92 (LC) (6 September 2002)

The court found that the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by making a finding on substantive fairness when the parties had expressly agreed not to contest this issue and no evidence was led in that regard. The commissioner exceeded his powers and failed to apply his mind to the dispute before him. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the CCMA for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner. The application for review was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 170
Parties
Applicant: Telkom SA Ltd; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Matte D, NO; Respondent: Communication Workers Union; Respondent: Mahsaba, M
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2002
Case Number
JR1863/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application granted; arbitration award set aside and matter remitted for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner; application in terms of section 158(1)(c) dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Dlodlo
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Remittal to Arbitrator
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Remittal to Arbitrator

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telkom SA Ltd

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Matte D, NO

Respondent

Communication Workers Union

Respondent

Mahsaba, M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by deciding on substantive fairness when it was not in issue.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner exceeded his powers by making findings not supported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by making a finding on substantive fairness when the parties had expressly agreed not to contest this issue and no evidence was led in that regard. The commissioner exceeded his powers and failed to apply his mind to the dispute before him. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the CCMA for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner. The application for review was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Review application granted; arbitration award set aside and matter remitted for fresh arbitration before a different commissioner; application in terms of section 158(1)(c) dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review in terms of section 145(2)(a)(ii) is granted.
  • The finding and award made by the commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CCMA to be arbitrated afresh by a different commissioner.