Trentyre (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (C517/2006) [2008] ZALC 235 (7 May 2008)
The court found that the commissioner did not commit a gross irregularity. The commissioner considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the importance of the rule. She recorded that dismissal for drunkenness could be a valid reason, but in the circumstances of a first offence, it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZALC 235
- Parties
- Applicant: Trentyre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA); Respondent: Sarah Christie N.O.; Respondent: The Motor Industry Bargaining Council; Respondent: Simon Witbooi
- Court
- Labour Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- C517/2006
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Pillay D
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Misconduct, Drunkenness on Duty, Fair Hearing
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Trentyre (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA)
Respondent
Sarah Christie N.O.
Respondent
The Motor Industry Bargaining Council
Respondent
Simon Witbooi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by allegedly denying the applicant a fair hearing.
- 2 Whether the commissioner improperly discounted the seriousness of drunkenness on duty as misconduct.
- 3 Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a first offence of drunkenness on duty.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the commissioner did not commit a gross irregularity. The commissioner considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the importance of the rule. She recorded that dismissal for drunkenness could be a valid reason, but in the circumstances of a first offence, it was not sufficient to justify dismissal. The commissioner also considered whether the conduct posed a risk to management. The application for review was therefore dismissed, as the award was reasonable and no fair hearing was denied.
Court Disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
C517/2006 JUDGMENT
1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT CAPE TOWN)
CASE NUMBER: C517/2006
Heard and Delivered: 7 May 2008
Edited: 0 June 2010
NOT REPORTABLE
TRENTYRE (Pty) LTD .......................................................................................Applicant
and
NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS
OF SOUTH AFRICA (“NUMSA”) ............................................................First Respondent
SARAH CHRISTIE N.O. ...................................................................Second Respondent
THE MOTOR INDUSRTY BARGAINING
COUNCIL .............................................................................................Third Respondent
SIMON WITBOOI ..............................................................................Fourth Respondent
J U D G M E N T
PILLAY D, J:
This is an application to review and set aside the award of the second respondent commissioner. This is a classic case in which an application for a review should be dismissed. It is submitted for the applicant that the award should be set aside on the grounds that it amounts to a gross irregularity because the commissioner effectively denied the applicant a fair hearing by discounting altogether the misconduct of being drunk on duty because it was the applicant’s first offence.
It is manifest from the award that the commissioner took into account all factors and did not exclude the seriousness of the offence and the importance of the rule; she in fact records that dismissal for drunkenness would be a valid reason for a dismissal, but in the circumstances was not a sufficient reason to dismiss. The commissioner also took into account that dismissal is a remedy when conduct poses a risk to management.
In the circumstances the application for review is dismissed with costs.
________________
PILLAY D, J
/bw /...