Value Logistics (Personnel) Services (Pty) Ltd v Lestoalo and Others (JR2055/2012) [2014] ZALCJHB 400 (14 October 2014)
The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal did not demonstrate that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion. The arbitrator's handling of the insubordination charge indicated a misconception of the inquiry's nature. The review judgment was based on appropriate review...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZALCJHB 400
- Parties
- Applicant: Value Logistics (Personnel) Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lukas Letsoalo; Respondent: AC Mannde NO; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2055/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Fourie
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Insubordination, Leave to Appeal Threshold
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Value Logistics (Personnel) Services (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Lukas Letsoalo
Respondent
AC Mannde NO
Respondent
National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitrator misconceived the nature of the inquiry regarding insubordination.
- 2 Whether the review judgment was determined on grounds appropriate for review rather than appeal.
- 3 Whether the arbitrator's conduct during the inquiry affected the fairness of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the grounds advanced for leave to appeal did not demonstrate that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion. The arbitrator's handling of the insubordination charge indicated a misconception of the inquiry's nature. The review judgment was based on appropriate review principles, not appeal standards. The arbitrator's failure to respond to serious allegations regarding his conduct during the inquiry supported the review judgment's findings. Consequently, there were no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case no: JR2055/2012
In the matter between:
VALUE LOGISTICS (PERSONNEL) SERVICES
(PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
LUKAS LETSOALO
First Respondent
AC MANNDE NO
Second Respondent
NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE
ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
Third Respondent
Decided in Chambers
Date of Ruling: 14 October 2014
RULING IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FOURIE, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the First Respondent, Mr Letosoalo, for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered by this Court on 18 July 2014. In its judgment, the court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent (“the arbitrator”), and replaced it with an award that the dismissal of the First Respondent (“the employee”) was fair.
[2] The test to be applied is well-established – the applicable threshold is whether another court (in this instance, the Labour Appeal Court) might reasonably come to a different conclusion.
[3] The application for leave to appeal was filed out of time, but the delay is not material, and I will deal with the application on its merits.
[4] I handed down a written judgment that contains detailed findings. The application for leave to appeal is premised on three grounds.
[5] First, the finding that the arbitrator misconceived the nature of the inquiry, is attacked on the ground that the arbitrator did deal with the charge on insubordination. In my view this attack is misplaced – while the arbitrator did deal with the issue of insubordination, the manner in which he approached it indicates that he misconceived the nature of the inquiry.
[6] Second, the assertion is made that the matter was determined on grounds that are more applicable to appeals than reviews. I disagree.
[7] Third, the finding that the arbitrator was not fully awake throughout the inquiry is attacked. I remain of the view that the arbitrator should have responded to this serious allegation against him, and that his failure to do so is supportive of the finding that there is substance to the matter.
[8] I am therefore not persuaded that another court might reasonably come to a different conclusion, nor I am persuaded to believe that there are any compelling reasons why leave should be granted.
Therefore, the following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
____________
Fourie AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa