Town Talk Furnishers v Mannde and Others (JR166/2006) [2007] ZALCJHB 47 (15 June 2007)

Town Talk Furnishers v Mannde and Others (JR166/2006) [2007] ZALCJHB 47 (15 June 2007)

The court found that the commissioner’s decision was unjustifiable in relation to the evidence. The payment of R200 by the customer’s girlfriend was directly linked to the television set account and was not merely security for attendance. The refusal to issue a receipt in the girlfriend’s name, despite her...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 47
Parties
Applicant: Town Talk Furnishers; Respondent: Christopher Mannde N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Ratsaka Mokou Thomas
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Case Number
JR166/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside as unjustifiable. The matter is remitted to the CCMA for a de novo determination before a different commissioner. The third respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.
Judges
Ngalwana
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Remittal for De Novo Hearing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Substantive Fairness Remittal for De Novo Hearing

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Town Talk Furnishers

Applicant

Christopher Mannde N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Ratsaka Mokou Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal substantively unfair was justifiable in relation to the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner misapplied the law or committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remitted for a de novo determination before a different commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s decision was unjustifiable in relation to the evidence. The payment of R200 by the customer’s girlfriend was directly linked to the television set account and was not merely security for attendance. The refusal to issue a receipt in the girlfriend’s name, despite her insistence, and the acceptance of cash without proper procedure, constituted a breach of company policy. The commissioner’s finding that the R200 did not belong to the applicant was irrational given the circumstances. The court held that there was insufficient material to decide on the appropriateness of the sanction and that the matter should be remitted for a de novo determination...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside as unjustifiable. The matter is remitted to the CCMA for a de novo determination before a different commissioner. The third respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award made by the first respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the second respondent for a de novo determination before a different commissioner.