Moripe v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 662/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 156 (24 June 2011)

Moripe v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 662/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 156 (24 June 2011)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that his continued employment with the third respondent was intolerable. The incidents cited by the applicant were not sufficiently grave to constitute constructive dismissal. The commissioner applied his mind to the evidence and provided comprehensive reasons for his finding. The applicant did not utilize available internal grievance procedures or declare an unfair labour practice regarding his placement. The grounds for review advanced by the applicant did not demonstrate that the commissioner misdirected himself or exceeded his mandate. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 156
Parties
Applicant: Rabone Moripe; Respondent: The General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Adv. A. Sirkhot; Respondent: Department of Home Affairs
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Case Number
JR 662/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Cawe N
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Constructive Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Labour Practice

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabone Moripe

Applicant

The General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Adv. A. Sirkhot

Respondent

Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was constructively dismissed by the third respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent should be reviewed and set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner misdirected himself in finding that the applicant was not constructively dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that his continued employment with the third respondent was intolerable. The incidents cited by the applicant were not sufficiently grave to constitute constructive dismissal. The commissioner applied his mind to the evidence and provided comprehensive reasons for his finding. The applicant did not utilize available internal grievance procedures or declare an unfair labour practice regarding his placement. The grounds for review advanced by the applicant did not demonstrate that the commissioner misdirected himself or exceeded his mandate. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.