Western Platinum Ltd v NUM obo Molema (JR 2344/11) [2012] ZALCJHB 180 (21 November 2012)

Western Platinum Ltd v NUM obo Molema (JR 2344/11) [2012] ZALCJHB 180 (21 November 2012)

The court found that the second respondent, as arbitrator, committed a gross misdirection by failing to consider critical evidential material, specifically the memorandum outlining re-employment criteria. The evidence demonstrated that the fourth respondent was dismissed on 24 May 2011 for participating in an unprotected strike and did not qualify for re-employment due to a valid final written warning. The arbitrator's finding that the respondent was re-employed and then dismissed was not supported by the facts. The mistake that led to the respondent's inclusion in the re-employment process did not alter the established criteria, and the respondent's exclusion was justified. The...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 180
Parties
Applicant: Western Platinum Limited; Respondent: NUM obo Molema JM
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2012
Case Number
JR 2344/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. No costs order is made.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Unprotected Strike, Reemployment Criteria
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Unprotected Strike Reemployment Criteria

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Western Platinum Limited

Applicant

NUM obo Molema JM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent should be reviewed and set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the fourth respondent was dismissed on 24 May 2011 and whether he qualified for re-employment after participating in an unprotected strike.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent misdirected herself in evaluating the evidential material regarding the dismissal and re-employment process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent, as arbitrator, committed a gross misdirection by failing to consider critical evidential material, specifically the memorandum outlining re-employment criteria. The evidence demonstrated that the fourth respondent was dismissed on 24 May 2011 for participating in an unprotected strike and did not qualify for re-employment due to a valid final written warning. The arbitrator's finding that the respondent was re-employed and then dismissed was not supported by the facts. The mistake that led to the respondent's inclusion in the re-employment process did not alter the established criteria, and the respondent's exclusion was justified. The...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside. No costs order is made.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case NWRPRB1685/11 on 5 August 2011, received by the applicant on 11 August 2011, is reviewed and set aside.
  • No costs order is made.