Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail v Hefer (J1664/00) [2002] ZALC 48; [2002] 10 BLLR 1011 (LC) (31 May 2002)

Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail v Hefer (J1664/00) [2002] ZALC 48; [2002] 10 BLLR 1011 (LC) (31 May 2002)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a complete record of the arbitration proceedings, which is required for a proper review. The technical evidence relied upon by the applicant was not proved, and the arbitrator's findings regarding the operation of the 'dead man's handle' and the employee's exhaustion were justified in the absence of rebuttal evidence. The arbitrator did not commit any gross misconduct or irregularity, and the refusal to conduct an inspection in loco was not proven to be an irregularity. The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving gross neglect of duty, and the arbitrator's award reinstating the employee was not reviewable.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 48
Parties
Applicant: Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail; Respondent: T Hefer
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2002
Case Number
J1664/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application for review is dismissed. The dismissal of the second respondent was unfair. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Judges
Ngcamu
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Neglect of Duty, Disciplinary Procedure, Onus of Proof, Inspection in Loco
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Neglect of Duty Disciplinary Procedure Onus of Proof Inspection in Loco

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail

Applicant

T Hefer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity or misconduct in the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved gross neglect of duty by the employee.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a complete record justifies dismissal of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a complete record of the arbitration proceedings, which is required for a proper review. The technical evidence relied upon by the applicant was not proved, and the arbitrator's findings regarding the operation of the 'dead man's handle' and the employee's exhaustion were justified in the absence of rebuttal evidence. The arbitrator did not commit any gross misconduct or irregularity, and the refusal to conduct an inspection in loco was not proven to be an irregularity. The applicant did not discharge the onus of proving gross neglect of duty, and the arbitrator's award reinstating the employee was not reviewable.

Court Disposition

The application for review is dismissed. The dismissal of the second respondent was unfair. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The dismissal of the second respondent was unfair.