Two Rivers Platinum Mine (Pty) Ltd v Roos and Others (JA16/2014) [2015] ZALAC 111 (10 December 2015)

Two Rivers Platinum Mine (Pty) Ltd v Roos and Others (JA16/2014) [2015] ZALAC 111 (10 December 2015)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by allowing the respondent's evidence on inconsistent discipline without the issue being properly raised or the appellant given an opportunity to rebut. The respondent only raised inconsistency during his evidence, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 111
Parties
Appellant: Two Rivers Platinum Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Shiko Raphela, N.O.; Respondent: Christo Roos
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Case Number
JA16/2014
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application; Appeal Heard and Decided
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; dismissal of respondent found both procedurally and substantively fair.
Judges
Tlaletsi, Sutherland, Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Inconsistent Discipline, Gross Negligence, Procedural Fairness, Progressive Discipline
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Inconsistent Discipline Gross Negligence Procedural Fairness Progressive Discipline

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Two Rivers Platinum Mine (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Shiko Raphela, N.O.

Respondent

Christo Roos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application; Appeal Heard and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's finding of substantively unfair dismissal due to inconsistent application of discipline was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed an irregularity by failing to advise parties to lead evidence on inconsistency.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the employee was both procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by allowing the respondent's evidence on inconsistent discipline without the issue being properly raised or the appellant given an opportunity to rebut. The respondent only raised inconsistency during his evidence, and the appellant's witnesses were not confronted with it. The arbitrator failed to appreciate the respondent's prior final written warning and lack of remorse, which distinguished his case from others. The mining industry's emphasis on safety and the respondent's recidivism rendered continued employment intolerable. The arbitrator also failed to guide the parties appropriately regarding...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; dismissal of respondent found both procedurally and substantively fair.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an order that the arbitration award reference number MP165-10 issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside and replaced by an order that the dismissal of the respondent was both procedurally and substantively fair.