Tiger Brands v CCMA and Others (D288/09) [2010] ZALCD 5 (26 July 2010)

Tiger Brands v CCMA and Others (D288/09) [2010] ZALCD 5 (26 July 2010)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and justified on the evidence. The incident leading to dismissal was a minor altercation between long-serving colleagues, amounting to a push rather than a serious assault. The company’s own disciplinary guidelines recommended a final written warning for such conduct, and there was no evidence justifying deviation from this recommendation. The arbitrator properly considered the admissibility of the witness statement and applied the relevant legal criteria. The charge of intimidation was not substantiated by the evidence, as the complainant did not feel threatened or intimidated. The arbitrator’s conclusion that the sanction of...

Citation
[2010] ZALCD 5
Parties
Applicant: Tiger Brands; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Sarojini Balkaran; Respondent: Ivan Jasper David
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2010
Case Number
D288/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Consistency of Sanction, Review of Arbitration Award, Admissibility of Evidence
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Consistency of Sanction Review of Arbitration Award Admissibility of Evidence

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

Parties

Tiger Brands

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Sarojini Balkaran

Respondent

Ivan Jasper David

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award declaring the dismissal of the third respondent unfair is reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the nature of the misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator erred in disregarding the statement of a witness not called to testify.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and justified on the evidence. The incident leading to dismissal was a minor altercation between long-serving colleagues, amounting to a push rather than a serious assault. The company’s own disciplinary guidelines recommended a final written warning for such conduct, and there was no evidence justifying deviation from this recommendation. The arbitrator properly considered the admissibility of the witness statement and applied the relevant legal criteria. The charge of intimidation was not substantiated by the evidence, as the complainant did not feel threatened or intimidated. The arbitrator’s conclusion that the sanction of...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.