Transnet Rail Engineering v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR18/15) [2017] ZALCPE 32; [2018] 3 BLLR 317 (LC) (3 November 2017)

Transnet Rail Engineering v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR18/15) [2017] ZALCPE 32; [2018] 3 BLLR 317 (LC) (3 November 2017)

The court found that the commissioner did not ignore any material facts in evaluating the evidence on substantive issues. The policy in question only imposed obligations on the driver, not passengers, and Mr Myburgh’s actions were authorised and reasonable. The commissioner’s findings on substantive fairness were beyond reproach. However, the commissioner misconceived the enquiry regarding procedural fairness by finding procedural unfairness solely due to delay, despite no prejudice to Mr Myburgh. The court held that procedural fairness was not compromised and replaced the award accordingly.

Citation
[2017] ZALCPE 32
Parties
Applicant: Transnet Rail Engineering; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Antonio Moodaley N.O.; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of SA; Respondent: NUMSA obo Henry Myburgh
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2017
Case Number
PR18/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review dismissed on substantive fairness; review succeeds on procedural fairness. The dismissal of Mr Myburgh is procedurally fair. No order as to costs.
Judges
P Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Inconsistent Discipline, Misconduct, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Inconsistent Discipline Misconduct Review of Arbitration 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transnet Rail Engineering

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Antonio Moodaley N.O.

Respondent

National Union of Metalworkers of SA

Respondent

NUMSA obo Henry Myburgh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner ignored material facts in finding the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair.
  2. 2 Whether a passenger in a company vehicle can be held accountable for its misuse under company policy.
  3. 3 Whether discipline was applied inconsistently by the employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner did not ignore any material facts in evaluating the evidence on substantive issues. The policy in question only imposed obligations on the driver, not passengers, and Mr Myburgh’s actions were authorised and reasonable. The commissioner’s findings on substantive fairness were beyond reproach. However, the commissioner misconceived the enquiry regarding procedural fairness by finding procedural unfairness solely due to delay, despite no prejudice to Mr Myburgh. The court held that procedural fairness was not compromised and replaced the award accordingly.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed on substantive fairness; review succeeds on procedural fairness. The dismissal of Mr Myburgh is procedurally fair. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review on the ground that the first respondent’s finding in respect of substantive fairness is unreasonable is dismissed.
  • The review on the ground that the first respondent’s finding in respect of procedural fairness is unreasonable succeeds. The award in this regard is replaced with the following order: The dismissal of Mr Myburgh is procedurally fair.