Wadeville Secure (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR557/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 85 (3 March 2017)

Wadeville Secure (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR557/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 85 (3 March 2017)

The commissioner’s decision that the third respondent’s dismissal was substantively unfair was unreasonable because the third respondent admitted to exceeding the speed limit on several occasions, thereby conceding to the misconduct. The finding of procedural unfairness was justified due to the applicant’s failure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 85
Parties
Applicant: Wadeville Secure (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Dephney Mahosi; Respondent: George Khakhu Mmaphaha
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Case Number
JR557/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for rehearing before a different commissioner.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Negligence
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Review of Arbitration Award Gross Negligence

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wadeville Secure (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Dephney Mahosi

Respondent

George Khakhu Mmaphaha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner’s award finding the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair was reasonable on the evidence before her.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant’s failure to call the originator of the tracker report rendered the evidence inadmissible.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedure followed by the applicant was fair in terms of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner’s decision that the third respondent’s dismissal was substantively unfair was unreasonable because the third respondent admitted to exceeding the speed limit on several occasions, thereby conceding to the misconduct. The finding of procedural unfairness was justified due to the applicant’s failure to provide reasonable notice of new charges before the disciplinary hearing. However, the commissioner’s conclusion that the applicant failed to prove the misconduct was inconsistent with the third respondent’s own admissions. The award was therefore reviewed and set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for rehearing before a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case number GAEK10228 and dated 30 January 2014 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the first respondent to be heard de novo by a commissioner other than the second respondent.