Transwerk v IMSSA and Others (JR221/01) [2002] ZALC 185; (2002) 23 ILJ 2313 (LC) (8 November 2002)

Transwerk v IMSSA and Others (JR221/01) [2002] ZALC 185; (2002) 23 ILJ 2313 (LC) (8 November 2002)

The court held that the arbitration award was not susceptible to review on the grounds of justifiability or rationality because the arbitration was not compulsory under the Labour Relations Act but rather conducted pursuant to the constitution of the Transnet Bargaining Council. The arbitrator was not exercising public power, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act did not apply. The applicant failed to show that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity as contemplated by section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator applied her mind to the facts, identified the applicant's error in advertising the posts, and found that the applicant failed in its duty to correct...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 185
Parties
Applicant: Transwerk; Respondent: IMSSA; Respondent: R Essack; Respondent: Technical Workers Union on behalf of Pienaar and Smit
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2002
Case Number
JR221/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Freund
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Unfair Labour Practice, Remuneration Dispute, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Unfair Labour Practice Remuneration Dispute Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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

Parties

Transwerk

Applicant

IMSSA

Respondent

R Essack

Respondent

Technical Workers Union on behalf of Pienaar and Smit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award by the second respondent should be reviewed and set aside under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the award was justifiable or rational in relation to the evidence and law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitration award was not susceptible to review on the grounds of justifiability or rationality because the arbitration was not compulsory under the Labour Relations Act but rather conducted pursuant to the constitution of the Transnet Bargaining Council. The arbitrator was not exercising public power, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act did not apply. The applicant failed to show that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity as contemplated by section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator applied her mind to the facts, identified the applicant's error in advertising the posts, and found that the applicant failed in its duty to correct...

Court Disposition

Application 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.