Tiger Brands v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D288/09) [2010] ZALC 317 (26 July 2010)

Tiger Brands v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D288/09) [2010] ZALC 317 (26 July 2010)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was reasonable and justified. The evidence indicated that the misconduct involved a minor physical altercation (a push) between two long-serving employees, for which the employer's own disciplinary guidelines recommended a written warning rather than dismissal. The arbitrator properly considered the admissibility and relevance of the witness statement and exercised her discretion in accordance with the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. There was no evidence to support the charge of intimidation, nor any indication that the complainant felt intimidated. The employer failed to justify the deviation from its own guidelines, and the evidence showed...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 317
Parties
Applicant: Tiger Brands; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Sarojini Balkaran; Respondent: Ivan Jasper David
Court
Labour Court
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, Review of Arbitration Award, Consistency of Disciplinary Sanctions, Admissibility of Evidence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Consistency of Disciplinary Sanctions 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 and the employer's disciplinary guidelines.
  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. The evidence indicated that the misconduct involved a minor physical altercation (a push) between two long-serving employees, for which the employer's own disciplinary guidelines recommended a written warning rather than dismissal. The arbitrator properly considered the admissibility and relevance of the witness statement and exercised her discretion in accordance with the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. There was no evidence to support the charge of intimidation, nor any indication that the complainant felt intimidated. The employer failed to justify the deviation from its own guidelines, and the evidence showed...

Court Disposition

Application for review 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 application.