Tiger Brands Field Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (P334/04) [2006] ZALC 45; [2006] 7 BLLR 694 (LC) (15 March 2006)

Tiger Brands Field Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (P334/04) [2006] ZALC 45; [2006] 7 BLLR 694 (LC) (15 March 2006)

The court found that although the arbitrator erred in his approach to permitting legal representation, the error was not material enough to constitute a gross irregularity or to deny the applicant a fair hearing. The dispute was not complex, did not involve public interest, and both parties were adequately represented. The arbitrator's findings on the substantive and procedural fairness of the dismissal were rational and justified by the evidence. The charges against the third respondent were correctly understood and applied, and there was no evidence of bias or misconduct sufficient to warrant setting aside the award. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator's conduct...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 45
Parties
Applicant: Tiger Brand Field Services (A division of Tiger Diversified Field Services (Pty) Limited); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Adriaan van der Walt; Respondent: Steven Belgrove
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2006
Case Number
P334/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misappropriation of Funds, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Legal Representation in Ccma, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Misappropriation of Funds Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Legal Representation in Ccma Disciplinary Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tiger Brand Field Services (A division of Tiger Diversified Field Services (Pty) Limited)

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Adriaan van der Walt

Respondent

Steven Belgrove

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed gross irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to properly apply his mind to the issues and facts before him.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's decision to allow legal representation was justified under the CCMA rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the arbitrator erred in his approach to permitting legal representation, the error was not material enough to constitute a gross irregularity or to deny the applicant a fair hearing. The dispute was not complex, did not involve public interest, and both parties were adequately represented. The arbitrator's findings on the substantive and procedural fairness of the dismissal were rational and justified by the evidence. The charges against the third respondent were correctly understood and applied, and there was no evidence of bias or misconduct sufficient to warrant setting aside the award. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator's conduct...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.