Xhariep District Municipality v SAMWU obo May and Others (JR2079/13, J2426/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 88 (23 February 2018)

Xhariep District Municipality v SAMWU obo May and Others (JR2079/13, J2426/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 88 (23 February 2018)

The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were essentially grounds of appeal and did not establish any reviewable irregularity. The commissioner had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the double jeopardy principle correctly, finding procedural unfairness where the employee had already been warned for the same conduct. The findings regarding the lack of evidence for charges 2 and 3 were reasonable and consistent with the evidence. The sanction of dismissal for charge 1 was harsh and unfair, justifying interference by the commissioner. The award fell within the bounds of reasonableness and could not be set aside on review. The condonation application was...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 88
Parties
Applicant: Xhariep District Municipality; Respondent: SAMWU obo Lehlohonolo Moses May; Respondent: Suria van Wyk N.O; Respondent: SALGBC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Case Number
JR2079/13, J2426/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application
Outcome
The application for review is dismissed. The arbitration award is made an order of court. No order as to costs.
Judges
Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Double Jeopardy, Condonation, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Double Jeopardy Condonation Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xhariep District Municipality

Applicant

SAMWU obo Lehlohonolo Moses May

Respondent

Suria van Wyk N.O

Respondent

SALGBC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the second respondent was reasonable and justifiable.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by failing to apply her mind, ignoring evidence, or committing an error of law.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of double jeopardy was correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were essentially grounds of appeal and did not establish any reviewable irregularity. The commissioner had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the double jeopardy principle correctly, finding procedural unfairness where the employee had already been warned for the same conduct. The findings regarding the lack of evidence for charges 2 and 3 were reasonable and consistent with the evidence. The sanction of dismissal for charge 1 was harsh and unfair, justifying interference by the commissioner. The award fell within the bounds of reasonableness and could not be set aside on review. The condonation application was...

Court Disposition

The application for review is dismissed. The arbitration award is made an order of court. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss is hereby dismissed.
  • The condonation application is hereby dismissed.