About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZALCJHB 18
|
|
South African Revenue Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1516/07) [2010] ZALCJHB 18 (7 April 2010)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
IN JOHANNESBURG
REPORTABLE
CASE
NO: JR 1516/07
In
the matter between
SOUTH
AFRICAN REVENUE
SERVICES
Applicant
And
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
First
Respondent
MOTLATSI
PHALA N.O
Second
Respondent
MTHUNZI
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Molahlehi
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an application to review and set
aside the arbitration award issued by the second respondent (the
commissioner) under case
number GAJB 19059-06 and dated 14 May 2007.
In terms of the arbitration award the commissioner found the
dismissal of the third
respondent (the employee) to have been both
substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered that she be
re-employed.
Background facts.
[2]
The employee was prior to her dismissal by
the applicant employed as anti-smuggling officer based at the Oliver
Tambo International
Airport. The dismissal which took effect on 18
August 2006, was consequent to a disciplinary hearing wherein the
employee was charged
with the following offences:
“
Insubordination
in that on 20 March 2006 you were informed of the requirements that
you are to report for duty at the newly formed
JIA profiling on 22
March 2006, but you refused to do this and not inform management of
your refusal to do so. In addition the
team never came through to JIA
in order to train you and other colleagues, you have not attended
this training and no excuse was
tendered.
o
Absent without leave:
§
In that on 28 March 2006 you were absent
from work without the necessary permission. An earlier warning letter
was issued to you
in this regard.
§
In that on 22 M arch 2006, a team leader
came to JIA in order to train you and other colleagues on profiling
techniques which you
chose not to attend and disrespectfully emailed
your team leader and others that you are not interested in joining
the team which
was noted “I hope it is clear to those who are
deaf,”.
o
Demotion of abuse and insolence
behaviour:
§
In that on 5 April 2005 you were
reprimanded for not complying with the reverse screening of the
Airport Company of South Africa
and decided to disrespectfully lash
out against this reprimand.
§
In that on 31 January 2006, you were
instructed to write an AST Informal Training Evaluation Paper, which
you blatantly refused,
by drawing a line through this and walked out
whilst being disrespectful and rude.”
[3]
The charge concerning absence without leave
was according to the applicant withdrawn during the disciplinary
hearing. The dismissal
was for insubordination and insolent
behaviour.
The grounds for review
[4]
The grounds of review are set out in the
applicants founding affidavit as follows:
“
6.1.1
At one stage we were involved in a screaming match and the Second
Respondent continually slapped his hands
on the table;
6.1.2 he
continually interrupted my witnesses by confronting them with their
previous testimonies
which was not his duty but the duty of the Third
Respondent’s representative;
6.1.3 when
I objected to questions asked the Third Respondent’s
representative, Second
Respondent stated that he is not willing to
listen to my objections
6.1.4
the situation became unbearable to me and when I asked for a caucus
between myself, the Second
Respondent and the Third Respondent’s
representative, the Second Respondent simply walked out of the
proceedings.”
[5]
The applicant further contended in the
supplementary affidavit that although the email of the 29 March 2006,
was not addressed to
Ms Tripmaker (Tripmaker), she respondent to it
because she realised that the employee “
was
shooting herself in the foot.”
The
issue of insolence in the email of the employee arose from her
comment where she says:
“
I
am not interested in the profiling secondment!! This should be clear
for those who are deaf”
[6]
The insubordination charges arose from the
refusal by the employee to be part of the profiling team.
[7]
Mr Roux (Roux), who at the time the dispute
arose was a group manager, testified that a need to restructure the
operations of the
applicant arose because of the high risk of more
drugs coming into the country. Part of the restructuring entailed the
establishment
of the profiling team. As a result of the restructuring
the employee was instructed to join the profiling team. The employee
was
chosen as one of the people to join the profiling team because of
her training and experience. The employee had received training
from
the United Nations on profiling. There is a disagreement as to
whether she also receive training in the UK. She contended
that she
went to the UK only to observe and not for training.
[8]
Roux further testified that the employee
failed to obey his instruction that she should join the profiling
team. There were two
other employees who also refused to join the
profiling team. Mr Peter Zamisa (Zamisa) was one of the employees who
refused to join
the profiling team. He was issued with a final
written warning for his insubordination. It seems no action was taken
against other
employee Mr Mangolela (Mangolela) who also refused to
join the profiling team. Nothing happened to him because according to
Roux
he took a responsible step of speaking to his line manager about
the issue. In the case of the employee, Roux testified that:
“
Because
of her disciplinary record and her arrogant correspondence it was
decided to take further disciplinary hearing.”
[9]
The other witness of the applicant was
Tripmaker who testified about what the employee did and said at a
training programme which
was convened by the applicant. She testified
that the employee stated loudly that she was not prepared to write
the test which
all the participants were required to write as part of
the evaluation of the training. She then had to leave the training
venue.
[10]
Mr Lestoalo (Lestoalo), another witness of
the applicant, testified that he had on the day in question
instructed the employee together
with the two others to join the
profiling unit. The three indicated that they were not interested in
working in profiling because
the work in that area was boring. It
would appear that Letsoalo spoke to his manager twice that day about
the refusal of the employees
to work in the profiling team. Roux
informed him that Mr Mboweni (Mboweni) would be instructed to issue
warnings against the employees
for their Mr Mboweni (Mboweni)
to issue warnings against the employees for their insubordination.
[11]
The applicant in her testimony did not
dispute having refused to join the profiling team. She testified that
profiling is one of
the functions of an anti-smuggling officer.
However, if you are assigned to profiling you do not perform other
functions but focus
only on risk analysis, which requires a person to
be confined to the office and work only through papers.
The commissioners’
award
[12]
After traversing in some details of the
evidence and the background facts, the commissioner analysed both the
evidence and the arguments
of the parties. In his analysis he deals
firstly with the issue of the insolent behaviour of the employee
which was alleged to
have taken place during April 2005. In this
respect the commissioner makes two findings. He found, it strange
that the applicant
made a determination against the employee on this
issue despite the fact that the issue had been addressed in that the
applicant
was reprimanded for the behaviour. The second point made by
the commissioner in his award is that even if the issue had not been
addressed, the time between when the incident occurred and when the
action was taken, which was about a year, was an unreasonable
delay.
As a matter of principle the commissioner correctly found that the
applicant ought to have taken action against the employee
whilst the
facts relating to the incident was still fresh in the minds of the
witnesses.
[13]
In dealing with the second aspect of
abusive and insolent behaviour which was alleged to have occurred on
11 January 2006 the commissioner
found that this concerned the issue
of performance. The issue in this respect concerned the presentation
which the employee made
without the use of overheard slides and
production of handouts during the training.
[14]
The commissioner accepted that the issue of
performance could be dealt with as a form of misconduct. He went
further and found that
in the particular instance the applicant ought
to have shown that the employee had vast experience in that line of
work for that
charge to be sustained.
[15]
The other aspect of insolent and
insubordination relates to the incident on 31 January 2006, when the
employee refused to write
the AST test during the training which was
conducted by the applicant. On the facts the commissioner found that
Roux instructed
Tripmaker to issue a written warning against the
employee but that was not done. Instead Tripmaker addressed a letter
to the applicant
wherein, amongst other things, she urged her “
to
adopt a more positive approach towards her work.”
[16]
In dealing with the compliant of
inconsistency concerning the application of the disciplinary
procedure, the commissioner found
that the approach adopted by the
applicant in this respect was unacceptable, in that the three
employees were given the same instructions
and were not given an
election whether to attend or not. The commissioner rejected the
explanation of the applicant that the differential
treatment of the
employees was based on the fact that one of the officers gave an
acceptable explanation for his conduct.
[17]
In relation to the refusal to join the
profiling team and the email of the 29 March 2006, wherein the
employee expressly indicated
her stand point about the profiling team
and the insolent language used therein, the commissioner found that:
“
In
response to the email from Tripmaker calling on her to be courteous
in her communication, the employee apologized.
The applicant had
issued a final written warning on the employee but that warning was
never served on the employee.
It was not clear
whether Roux had been aware that Tripmaker had directly addressed the
behaviour of the employee and the employee
had directly apologized.
The email of the 29
March 2006 aggravated and influenced the applicant in taking the
decision to discipline the employee.
By taking the decision
to discipline the employee, the applicant revived an incident that
had been dealt with.
On the version of Roux
it was never the intention of the applicant to dismiss the employees.
The assertion by the
applicant that the relationship between it and the employee had
broken down was not supported by evidence.”
[18]
The commissioner further held that he would
not have interfered with the decision of the applicant to dismiss the
employee but for
the “
messy and
sloppy manner in which the dispute was handled.”
[19]
The test to apply in considering a review
application is set out in
Sidumo v
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and others 2007 28 ILJ 2405 (CC), at
2439 and the middle of paragraph [110]
as
follows:
“
Is
the decision reached by the commissioner one that a reasonable
decision maker could not reach? Applying it will give effect not
only
to the constitutional right to fair legal practices, but also to the
right to administrative action which is lawful, reasonable
and
procedurally fair.”
[20]
The Constitutional Court went further at paragraph [78] to
say:
“
[78]
In approaching the dismissal dispute impartially, a commissioner will
take into account the totality of circumstances.
He or she will
necessarily take into account the importance of the rule that had
been breached. The commissioner must of course
consider the reason
the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal, as he or she must
take into account the basis of the employee’s
challenge to the
dismissal. There are other factors that will require consideration.
For example, the harm caused by the employee’s
conduct, whether
additional training and instruction may result in the employee not
repeating the misconduct, the effect of dismissal
on the employee and
his or her long-service record. This is not an exhaustive list.”
[21]
In
Fedelity
Cash Management Services CC v CCMA & Others
[2008] 3 BLLR 197
(LAC),
the Labour Appeal Court
summarised
what
the commissioner needs to do in assessing the
fairness of the dismissal in terms of the test set out
Sidumo
as follows:
(a)
“take into account the totality of circumstances”
(paragraph 78);
(b)
“consider the importance of the rule that had been breached”
(paragraph
78);
(c)
“consider the reason the employer imposed the sanction of
dismissal, as
he or she must take into account the basis of the
employee’s challenge to the dismissal” (paragraph 78);
(d) “consider
the harm caused by the employee’s conduct” (paragraph
78);
(e)
“consider whether additional training and instruction may
result in the
employee not repeating the misconduct”;
(f)
“consider the effect of dismissal on the employee”
(paragraph
78); and
(g)
“consider the employee’s service record.”
[22]
The Labour Appeal Court in
Fedelity
Cash Management Services,
dealing with
the approach to be adopted in applying the reasonable decision-maker
test warned as follows
:
"It
will often happen that, in assessing the reasonableness or otherwise
of an arbitration award or other decision of a CCMA
commissioner, the
Court feels that it would have arrived at a different decision or
finding to that reached by the commissioner.
When that happens, the
Court will need to remind itself that the task of determining
fairness or otherwise of such a dismissal
is in terms of the; law
primarily given to the commissioner and that the system would never
work if the Court would interfere with
every decision or arbitration
award of the CCMA simply because it, that is the Court, would have
dealt with the matter differently.
Obviously, this does not in any
way mean that decisions or arbitration awards of the CCMA are
shielded from the legitimate scrutiny
of the Labour Court on review.”
[23]
It is apparent in my view that the
commissioner in arriving at the conclusion that the dismissal of the
employee was unfair applied
his mind to the facts and the relevant
circumstances of the case. It has not be noted that the commissioner
arrived at the conclusion
in the context of having to determine
whether the employee had committed the offences for which she was
charged with including
the fairness of his dismissal.
[24]
It has been accepted that whilst the
standard required of the commissioners’ awards as stated
earlier is that of a reasonable
decision-maker, it however does not
mean that the award should be free from mistakes of law or facts. It
is only those mistakes
of law or facts which fundamentally deny the
other party a fair hearing which will vitiate the outcome of an
arbitration hearing.
[25]
In the present instance whilst the
commissioner does not, in his award, make a formal finding as to
whether or not the employee
was guilty of the offences she was
charged with, it is however apparent from the reading of the award
that that is what he did.
The commissioner would not have awarded
re-employment but re-instatement had he found the employee not guilty
as charged.
[26]
The reading of the commissioner’s
award reveals that in arriving at the conclusion that the dismissal
was unfair, was influenced
by the circumstances and the manner in
which the respondent approach the case of the applicant.
[27]
The key finding of the commissioner is that
even if one accepts that the employee was guilty as charged, the
relationship between
the parties had not broken down such as to make
the dismissal fair. Put differently, the commissioner’s award
can be interpreted
to be saying that the applicant has failed to show
that the employment relationship has broken down due to the
employee’s
misconduct.
[28]
It has been held that the duty to show that
the relationship between the employer and the employee has broken
down beyond reproach
in the case of the charges of misconduct rests
with the employer. See
Edcon
Ltd v Pillemer NO & others
[2009] JOL 24333
(SCA).
In weighing the totality of the
evidence and the circumstances of the present case the commissioner’s
decision that the relationship
between the employee and the applicant
has not broken cannot be faulted for unreasonableness.
[29]
The evidence supporting the proposition
that the relationship between the parties did not breakdown to
justify a dismissal, can
be found even in the version of the
applicant. That proposition is supported by the email which Roux
addressed to
Mboweni dated 28
th
March 2006 at 07:01 pm which reads as follows:
“
Subject
re: TRAINING FOR PROFILING TEAM: 28 MARCH 2006.
Dear
Abel
Thanks for the report.
Allow me to give
further directions.
I am absolutely dump
struck by the attitude and approach of the officers who blatantly and
openly defy positive and legal instruction
to join the newly formed
profiling team. I am not going to elaborate on the reasons for
establishing this team and would like to
underscore that this
necessitated by unremitting performance.
In addition, what we
are doing falls well within the scope of JDs of the officers and part
of an officers’ work is to profile
something we seem not to be
doing. While this is now an issue I don’t know and I don’t
think the officers know themselves,
apart from the fact that any and
all instructions and initiatives are meeting with un-shamed
disrespect and disregard
We are constantly
exceeding requirements of fairness, transparency and being
constructive and we time and again walked in to miss
don’t care
attitude? This cannot and will no be accepted and an unfortunate. We
will take a strong and united stand on this
and rid JIAS of the
creeping cancer. I request you therefore:
Establish the facts
and confirm that this was a blatant and deliberate case of a AWOL
(remember, the request was that the team
is up and running by
last week Wednesday. Have the officers been doing since and what did
the JIAS management structure do to ensure
success?)
If the above is
confirmed draft final written warnings to the officers for been
insubordination and absence without leave and sent
to me sign off. I
know some of these officers already have two warnings letters issued
against to and we will engage HR of this.
I require feed bas ASP
please no latter that 15:00 on Wednesday.
Regards
Roux.”
[30]
The above was written following the report
from Mboweni to Roux. The relevant part of that report reads as
follows:
“
Warning
letters have been drafted but they were different one should be a
final written warning because I am meant to believe that
she is not
doing this kind of thing for the first time but no warning letter was
issues by Helen as requested for failure to write
a test but a
coaching letter was issued instead and second one will be the first
written warning.
Shadow (the employee)
still refuses to be part of the profiling team.
Both will be for
failure or refusal to carry out lawful instructions
Regards
Abel.”
[31]
The reasoning by the commissioner that the
relationship between the parties had not broken down to justify a
dismissal can be found
at paragraph 4.14 of the arbitration award
where it is reasoned as follows:
“
4.14
It is clear from the evidence of Raath (referring Roux) it was never
the intention of the Respondent to terminate the
employment of the
Applicant. On all the occasions that there was an allegation of an
infraction rather Raath issued an instruction
to issue a written
warning including the very incident on the profiling team. It is not
sustainable to argue that the employment
relationship had been broken
down because there was no evidence to support this allegation.”
[32]
The commissioner is correct in his
evaluation and in finding that the relationship between the parties
had not broken down or for
that matter the applicant had not intended
to terminate the relationship if regard is had to the final written
warning which Roux
had signed. Although the letter was never served
on the employee it evinced the attitude of the applicant as
concerning the offences
which the employee was alleged to have
committed.
[33]
There is no doubt on the facts of this case
that the employee refused blatantly to obey a lawful instruction.
There is authority
that refusal to obey lawful instructions is,
depending on the circumstances of a given case, regarded as a serious
offence to warrant
a dismissal particular if the refusal is
deliberate. As concerning the charge of insolent, which is based
largely on the contents
of the email of the 29
th
March 2006, it is apparent that the commissioner accepted that the
employee had been insolent towards her seniors. In this regard
it may
well be that the commissioner is incorrect in finding that the
employee’s apology mitigated the seriousness of her
behaviour.
This however is not the test to apply. The test as stated earlier is
whether the finding is reasonable or otherwise.
It has to be
emphasised that the commissioner made this finding in the context of
making a value judgment in the determination
of the fairness of the
dismissal.
[34]
The authorities are in agreement that it is
only the commissioner and no one else who has to determine the
fairness of the dismissal.
In the result I am unable to fault the
commissioner in as far as that finding is concerned. Thus the
argument of the applicant
that the letter which prompted an apology
from the employee was not official makes no sense.
[35]
Tripmaker in that letter never said that
she was writing in her personal capacity to warn the employee of the
possible consequences
that may arise from the contents of her email.
The letter was never retracted nor is there evidence that the
employee was informed
that that letter was unofficial. It has to be
noted in this respect that Tripmaker wrote this letter after being
instructed to
issue a written warning to the employee. Instead of
issuing the warning to the employee, Tripmaker decided to write a
letter to
the employee and indicate to her that she needs to be
mindful of her language. However, besides the letter of Tripmaker, it
is
not disputed that the employee apologised for her behaviour- a
factor which the commissioner took into account in his evaluation
of
the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal.
Inconsistency
[36]
It is now well established that
inconsistent application of discipline which is sometimes referred to
as the “parity rule”,
is not as such a rule but an aspect
of the principle of fairness. The Labour Appeal Court in dealing with
this issue in
SACCAWU and Others v Irvin
v Johnson Ltd(1999) 20 ILJ 2303(LAC)
at
2313 (paragraph 29) had the following to say:
“
It
was argued before us by Mr Grobler for the applicants that by not
dismissing four employees who had also participated in the
demonstration, the respondent applied discipline inconsistently.
Discipline must not be capricious. It is really the perception
of
bias inherent in selective discipline which makes it unfair. Where,
however, one is faced with large number of offending employees,
the
best that one can hope for is reasonable consistency. Some
consistency is the price to be paid for flexibility, which requires
the exercise of discretion in each individual case. If a chairperson
conscientiously and honestly, but incorrectly, exercises his
or her
discretion in a particular case in a particular way, it would mean
that there was unfairness towards the other employees.
It would mean
no more than that his or her assessment of the gravity of the
disciplinary offence was wrong. It cannot be fair that
other
employees profit from that kind of wrong decision. In a case of a
plurality dismissal, a wrong decision can only be unfair
if it is
capricious, or induced by improper motives or, worse, by a
discriminating management policy. (as was the case in Henred
Fruehauf
Trailers v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa &
Others (1992) 13 ILJ 593 (LAC) at 599H-601B; National
Union of
Mineworkers v Henred Fruehauf Trailers (Pty) Ltd (1994) 15 ILJ 1257
(A) at 1264.)”
[37]
In dealing with the facts relating to the
allegation of inconsistency the commissioner found that it was common
cause that the employee
together with the others refused to obey the
instruction to join the profiling team. He goes further to say: “
to
suggest that one of the officers gave an acceptable explanation
defeats the purpose of giving lawful instructions.”
[38]
The applicant contended that the reason for
treating the employee differently from the others was because of her
previous disciplinary
record. It would seem what the commissioner was
saying was that the environment that existed at the work place to
some extent tolerated
disobeying lawful instructions in certain
instances or that action would be taken against certain people and
not others. It would
also seem that that comment the serious manner
in which also relates, as stated earlier, to the issue of the
breakdown in the relationship
between the parties.
The alleged
commissioner’s biasness
[39]
The test for determining the existence of
bias has been set out in
BTR Industries
SA (Pty) Ltd & other v Metal & Allied Workers Union &
Another
[1992] ZASCA 85
;
1992( 3) SA 673
(A) at 693 I- J
wherein court held that:
“
As
will appear from what is said under the last hearing in this
judgment, on my view of the facts it is necessary for the purposes
of
this appeal to decide what the proper formulation of the test is for
disqualifying bias. For the reasons which follow I conclude
that in
our law the existence of a reasonable suspicion of bias satisfies the
test; and that an apprehension of a real likelihood
that the decision
maker will be biased is not a prerequisite for disqualification.”
[40]
The issue of bias as raised by the
applicant seems to be based on the engagement between the
representative of the applicant, Mr
Lebello (Lebello) and the
commissioner at some stage during the arbitration proceedings. The
issue seems to have arisen during
the cross examination of Roux.
Lebello raised an objection to the question posed to Roux by Mr
Mashaba (Mashaba), the representative
of the employee. The nature of
the question asked by Mashaba is not clear because of “inaudibles”
at page 405-407 of
the transcribed record of the arbitration
proceedings. However what seems clear is that Lebello objected to the
question which
was asked by Mashaba to the applicant’s witness.
[41]
The other engagement was when the
commissioner directed Lebello not to raise new issues during
re-examination of a witness. And
at page 435 of the record the
commissioner indicated to Lebello that he was not going to allow him
to testify from the bar. The
commissioner also intervened during
re-examination of Roux and indicated to Lebello he should refrain
from asking leading questions.
[42]
The record at page 509 reveals that when
the matter resumed on the 23
rd
April 2007 and immediately after the commissioner invited the
applicant to call its next witness, Lebello indicated that he wished
to raise a point before the matter could proceed further. At line 10
of that page Lebello formulated the point which he sought
to raise as
follows:
“
In
your instance, maybe before you do that there’s a preliminary
issue we want to raise with yourself, with the Respondents.
Obviously
we are not happy with the proceedings thus far in terms of, just the
nature of the conduct of the proceedings. What we’ve
realised
the commissioner is that you’ve very loud in this process.”
[43]
In response the commissioner stated the
following:
“
I
can’t speak softer than the way I talk. I want parties to hear
what I’m saying when I talk (in audible)… that
issue.”
[44]
Further on and at page 510, Lebello
complained as follows:
“
...
inaudible…but commissioner as well when you speak to us you
don’t give us an opportunity. I am talking about
myself.”
[45]
And at page 511 of the record Lebello says;
“
that you, its our view that you, you
know, at times you hit the table.”
And
some point in the engagement Lebello mentioned without giving any
details that the commissioner was intimidating the applicant’s
witnesses. I have found nothing in the transcript of the proceedings
supporting this allegation.
[46]
In my view the compliant of the applicant
concerning the biasness of the commissioner has no substance. There
are parts in the record
showing that the commissioner intervened in
the same way with the employee’s case as he did with that of
the applicant. At
one stage for instance the commissioner directed
Mashaba not to ask leading questions to his witnesses.
[47]
It would also appear that at some stage the
commissioner adjourned and advised Lebello to speak to the senior
commissioner about
the problem he had with the proceedings. And when
the matter resumed the commissioner enquired from Lebello whether he
did speak
to the senior commissioner and his answer seems to have
suggest he did but impliedly did not intend proceeding further with
the
complaint. He continued and participated in the proceedings
without indicating whether he still wished to pursue his compliant.
[48]
I am therefore of the view that there is no
substance in the compliant that the commissioner was bias.
Gross irregularity
[49]
The test to determine the existence of
gross irregularity as was articulated in
Gold
Fields Investment Ltd & another v City of Johannesburg &
another
1938 TPD 551
and followed in
Sidumo
(at
page 1178-F) is stated as follows:
“
. . . patent
irregularities, that is irregularities that takes place openly as
part of the proceedings, on the one hand, and “patent
irregularities, that is irregularities that take place inside the
mind of the judicial officer which are ascertainable from the
reasons
given by the decision maker.”
[50]
This court has previously held that the
crucial enquiry in determining the existence of gross irregularity is
whether the conduct
of the decision maker complained off prevented a
fair trial of the issues. It is not every irregularity that would
constitute gross-irregularity.
It has however been found in a number
of cases that a commissioner commits gross irregularity if he or she
fails to apply his or
her mind to a matter material to the
determination of the dispute.
[51]
In the light of the above, I am of the view
that the applicant’s application stand to fail. I see no reason
why in law and
fairness costs should not follow the results.
[52]
In the premises the applicant’s
application to have the arbitration award of the second respondent
reviewed and set aside
is dismissed with cost.
__________________
Molahlehi
J
Date
of hearing:
27 November 2009
Date
of Judgment:
7 April 2010
Appearances
For
the applicant:
Adv H. W Sibuyi
Instructed
by:
Eversheds
Attorneys
For
the respondent:
Ms Neo Nthinya of NEHAWU