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 8
|
|
Crazy Store (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (C373/2006) [2008] ZALCCT 8 (11 August 2008)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
CASE NO:
C373/2006
DATE: 7 MAY 2008
In the matter between:
THE CRAZY STORE
(PTY) LIMITED
APPLICANT
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
1
st
RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER
LUNGILE MATSHAKA
2
nd
RESPONDENT
CLARA ISABELLA
SOPHIA SWIEGERS
3
rd
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PILLAY
D, J:
[1]
The applicant employer contends that the second respondent, the
Arbitrator, committed gross irregularities which render her
reward
reviewable. The first irregularity alleged is that the arbitrator
refused to postpone the arbitration to enable the employer
to secure
the attendance of its witness who refused to attend the proceedings
despite being subpoenaed.
[2]
The arbitrator weighed the rights and prejudices to the parties at
pages 17 and 18 of the record. Of note, the employee
had
incurred flight and other expenses to attend the arbitration. The
employer had other witnesses, namely Felicia Arendse and
the
Chairperson of the internal enquiry whom it could have, but did not
call.
[3]
This ground must fail as the arbitrator’s refusal of the
postponement was eminently reasonable.
[4]
The second ground of review alleged was that the arbitrator took into
account evidence that the employee led at the previous
arbitration
which had since been rescinded. The arbitrator’s finding
of procedural unfairness was based entirely on
the evidence,
especially the cross-examination of Ms Benning.
[5]
The second ground of review must also fail.
[6]
The third ground of review was that the arbitrator considered
documentary evidence that was not properly tendered in evidence.
The evidence referred to was a letter of commendation which was
firstly, peripheral to the issue. Secondly, arbitration is
conducted with the minimum of legal formalities. If the
employer did not want the letter or any other documents to be
considered
without formal proof, it should have informed the
arbitrator during the proceedings.
[7]
The third ground of review must also fail.
In the
circumstances the
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS
.
______________________________
PILLAY
D, J
Date:
11 August 2008
APPEARANCES
For
the Applicant: Brendan Guy –Guy and Associates
For
the Respondent: Adv A de Wet instructed by CJ Ballan Attorneys