Tissue v Theron and Others (D828/98) [1999] ZALC 162 (1 November 1999)

Tissue v Theron and Others (D828/98) [1999] ZALC 162 (1 November 1999)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the first respondent was an independent contractor, as the evidence, particularly from the applicant's own administration officer, confirmed the employment relationship. The applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for its absence at the arbitration hearing, nor did it tender proof of the alleged illness of its director. The commissioner exercised his discretion properly in refusing both the postponement and the rescission application, and there was no reasonable likelihood that the evidence presented at the rescission hearing would have resulted in a different outcome. The review application was dismissed, and the...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 162
Parties
Applicant: M I T Tissue; Respondent: Cornelius Hermanus Theron; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA"); Respondent: Jeff Fobb N.O.
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 1999
Case Number
D828/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs. Arbitration award made an order of court.
Judges
G.H. Penzhorn
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Rescission of Award, Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Review of Arbitration, Condonation, Interest on Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Rescission of Award Employee Vs Independent Contractor Review of Arbitration Condonation Interest on Award

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

Parties

M I T Tissue

Applicant

Cornelius Hermanus Theron

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA")

Respondent

Jeff Fobb N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was an employee or an independent contractor.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the first respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the CCMA commissioner erred in refusing the applicant's application for rescission of the arbitration award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the first respondent was an independent contractor, as the evidence, particularly from the applicant's own administration officer, confirmed the employment relationship. The applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for its absence at the arbitration hearing, nor did it tender proof of the alleged illness of its director. The commissioner exercised his discretion properly in refusing both the postponement and the rescission application, and there was no reasonable likelihood that the evidence presented at the rescission hearing would have resulted in a different outcome. The review application was dismissed, and the...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs. Arbitration award made an order of court.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.
  • The arbitration award made by the third respondent on 25 June 1998 in favour of the first respondent in the amount of R102,000.00 is made an order of court.