UTI Pharma (Pty) Ltd v Bracks NO and Others (JR 2459/2018) [2021] ZALCJHB 11 (15 February 2021)

UTI Pharma (Pty) Ltd v Bracks NO and Others (JR 2459/2018) [2021] ZALCJHB 11 (15 February 2021)

The arbitrator's award was reviewable due to gross plagiarism and a failure to apply mind to the issues, as evidenced by the lack of reasoning and assessment of relevant facts. The arbitrator failed to consider the material fact that the employees were found guilty of misconduct and did not address the impracticability of reinstatement given the passage of time and changed circumstances. The court found that reinstatement was no longer appropriate and that compensation equivalent to six months' remuneration for each employee was a fair and just remedy in the circumstances.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 11
Parties
Applicant: UTI Pharma (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ronnie Bracks N.O.; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry; Respondent: GIWUSA obo Luvatsha & 9 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Case Number
JR 2459/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; substituted with compensation for employees.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Reinstatement Vs Compensation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Remedies for Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Reinstatement Vs Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UTI Pharma (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ronnie Bracks N.O.

Respondent

National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry

Respondent

GIWUSA obo Luvatsha & 9 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award was reviewable due to plagiarism and failure to apply mind to the issues.
  2. 2 Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy given the effluxion of time and circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether compensation should be substituted for reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's award was reviewable due to gross plagiarism and a failure to apply mind to the issues, as evidenced by the lack of reasoning and assessment of relevant facts. The arbitrator failed to consider the material fact that the employees were found guilty of misconduct and did not address the impracticability of reinstatement given the passage of time and changed circumstances. The court found that reinstatement was no longer appropriate and that compensation equivalent to six months' remuneration for each employee was a fair and just remedy in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; substituted with compensation for employees.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the first respondent on 22 September 2018 under case number GPCHEM 525-11/12 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The award is substituted by an order that the applicants are awarded compensation in a sum equivalent to six months' remuneration, calculated at the level of remuneration earned by each of them as at the date of dismissal.