Trentyre (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (C517/2006) [2008] ZALCCT 5 (7 May 2008)

35 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review of arbitration award — Application to review and set aside award of commissioner on grounds of gross irregularity — Applicant contending denial of fair hearing due to discounting of misconduct for first offence — Commissioner considered all relevant factors, including seriousness of offence and context of dismissal — Application for review dismissed with costs.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZALCCT 5
|

|

Trentyre (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (C517/2006) [2008] ZALCCT 5 (7 May 2008)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD
AT CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NUMBER: C517/2006
Heard and Delivered: 7
May 2008
Edited: 0 June 2010
NOT REPORTABLE
TRENTYRE
(Pty) LTD
Applicant
and
NATIONAL UNION OF
METAL WORKERS
OF
SOUTH AFRICA (“NUMSA”)
First
Respondent
SARAH
CHRISTIE
N.O.
Second
Respondent
THE MOTOR INDUSRTY
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
Third
Respondent
SIMON
WITBOOI
Fourth
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
PILLAY
D, J:
This
is an application to review and set aside the award of the second
respondent commissioner.  This is a classic case in
which an
application for a review should be dismissed.  It is submitted
for the applicant that the award should be set aside
on the grounds
that it amounts to a gross irregularity because the commissioner
effectively denied the applicant a fair hearing
by discounting
altogether the misconduct of being drunk on duty because it was the
applicant’s first offence.
It
is manifest from the award that the commissioner took into account
all factors and did not exclude the seriousness of the offence
and
the importance of the rule; she in fact records that dismissal for
drunkenness would be a valid reason for a dismissal, but
in the
circumstances was not a sufficient reason to dismiss.   The
commissioner also took into account that dismissal
is a remedy when
conduct poses a risk to management.
In
the circumstances the application for review is dismissed with costs.
________________
PILLAY
D, J