Umicore Catalyst SA (Pty) Ltd v Nogantshi and Others (PR89/14) [2015] ZALCPE 43 (11 August 2015)

Umicore Catalyst SA (Pty) Ltd v Nogantshi and Others (PR89/14) [2015] ZALCPE 43 (11 August 2015)

The court found that the arbitrator had properly applied his mind to the evidence, carefully analysing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and the probabilities. The arbitrator reasonably preferred the employee's consistent and credible evidence over the doctor's contradictory testimony. The employer failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee had committed fraudulent misrepresentation. The arbitrator's conclusion that the dismissal was unfair was reasonable and not open to review.

Citation
[2015] ZALCPE 43
Parties
Applicant: Umicore Catalyst SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: M D Nogantshi; Respondent: CEPPWAWU; Respondent: Commissioner Siyabongi Cokile; Respondent: Motor Industry Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2015
Case Number
PR89/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; the arbitrator's award stands.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Credibility Assessment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Credibility Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umicore Catalyst SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

M D Nogantshi

Respondent

CEPPWAWU

Respondent

Commissioner Siyabongi Cokile

Respondent

Motor Industry Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee committed fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the medical certificate.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's award was reasonable and open to review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator had properly applied his mind to the evidence, carefully analysing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and the probabilities. The arbitrator reasonably preferred the employee's consistent and credible evidence over the doctor's contradictory testimony. The employer failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee had committed fraudulent misrepresentation. The arbitrator's conclusion that the dismissal was unfair was reasonable and not open to review.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; the arbitrator's award stands.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.