Welkom v Osler NO and Others (JR201/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 253 (21 June 2016)

Welkom v Osler NO and Others (JR201/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 253 (21 June 2016)

The court held that the fact that the review application was unopposed did not entitle the applicant to relief as a matter of course. The reviewing court is required to determine whether the arbitration award is one that a reasonable commissioner could not issue. The evidence presented at arbitration, including witness testimony and statements, supported the finding that the applicant did not return the removed cables to the CNC-scrapyard. The award was detailed and justified by the evidence. The applicant's grounds for review were found to be more appropriate for an appeal rather than a review. The court was not persuaded that the award was reviewable in law and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 253
Parties
Applicant: Pule Abel Welkom; Respondent: Antony Osler N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eskom Holdings Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Case Number
JR201/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Failure to Apply Mind, Reasonableness of Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Failure to Apply Mind Reasonableness of Award

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

Pule Abel Welkom

Applicant

Antony Osler N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent was one that a reasonable commissioner could not issue.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent failed to apply his mind to the evidence presented.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the fact that the review application was unopposed did not entitle the applicant to relief as a matter of course. The reviewing court is required to determine whether the arbitration award is one that a reasonable commissioner could not issue. The evidence presented at arbitration, including witness testimony and statements, supported the finding that the applicant did not return the removed cables to the CNC-scrapyard. The award was detailed and justified by the evidence. The applicant's grounds for review were found to be more appropriate for an appeal rather than a review. The court was not persuaded that the award was reviewable in law and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

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