Vena v CCMA and Others (JR2783/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 195 (2 August 2019)

Vena v CCMA and Others (JR2783/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 195 (2 August 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to attend to the incident in his area of responsibility without justification. The commissioner’s finding that the applicant was guilty as charged was consistent with the evidence and was a decision that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The grounds for review advanced by the applicant lacked merit and amounted to an appeal rather than a review, which is not permissible. The award was free of any defect and not reviewable in law.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 195
Parties
Applicant: Nceba Steven Vena; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Jabulani Mashaba; Respondent: DDL Security Services (Pty) Ltd t/a 24/7 Security Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Case Number
JR2783/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonable Decision Maker, Gross Irregularity
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonable Decision Maker Gross Irregularity

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

Nceba Steven Vena

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Jabulani Mashaba

Respondent

DDL Security Services (Pty) Ltd t/a 24/7 Security Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant was reviewable under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed gross irregularities or misconduct in the arbitration process.
  3. 3 Whether the decision reached was one that a reasonable decision maker could arrive at.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to attend to the incident in his area of responsibility without justification. The commissioner’s finding that the applicant was guilty as charged was consistent with the evidence and was a decision that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The grounds for review advanced by the applicant lacked merit and amounted to an appeal rather than a review, which is not permissible. The award was free of any defect and not reviewable in law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.