South African Police Services v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (C09/2010) [2010] ZALC 232 (28 May 2010)

South African Police Services v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (C09/2010) [2010] ZALC 232 (28 May 2010)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider whether the applicant was aware of the third respondent's reasons for refusing the placement in the finance section and whether the applicant's conduct was objectively intolerable. The arbitrator did not address the possibility of alternative placements or the fact that the third respondent could have communicated his objections or sought a suitable position without resigning. The failures in reasoning collectively justified interference on review, as the arbitrator's conclusion that the third respondent was constructively dismissed was unreasonable given the circumstances and available alternatives.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 232
Parties
Applicant: South African Police Service; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Adv W F Maritz NO; Respondent: Inspector Hattingh
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Case Number
C09/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award set aside and substituted with a finding that the third respondent was not constructively dismissed.
Judges
Cheadle
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Intolerability Threshold, Alternative Placement, Condonation
Labour Law Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Intolerability Threshold Alternative Placement Condonation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Police Service

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Adv W F Maritz NO

Respondent

Inspector Hattingh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator correctly applied the requirements for constructive dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct made continued employment intolerable for the third respondent.
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable alternatives to resignation for the third respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider whether the applicant was aware of the third respondent's reasons for refusing the placement in the finance section and whether the applicant's conduct was objectively intolerable. The arbitrator did not address the possibility of alternative placements or the fact that the third respondent could have communicated his objections or sought a suitable position without resigning. The failures in reasoning collectively justified interference on review, as the arbitrator's conclusion that the third respondent was constructively dismissed was unreasonable given the circumstances and available alternatives.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award set aside and substituted with a finding that the third respondent was not constructively dismissed.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the 1st respondent dated 28 May 2006 under case number PSSS415-06/07 is set aside.
  • The award is substituted with an order that the 3rd respondent was not constructively dismissed.