About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZALCJHB 127
|
|
Arcelormittal South Africa v NUMSA obo Mazibuko and Others (JR 2027/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 127 (30 January 2013)
Not reportable
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case
no: JR 2027/10
In the matter between:
ARCELORMITTAL
SOUTH AFRICA
................................................
Applicant
and
NUMSA
obo P. MAZIBUKO
.................................................
First
Respondent
METAL
AND ENGINEERINGS BARGAINING
COUNCIL
(MEIBC)
..........................................................
Second
Respondent
MOKGERE
MASIPA N.O
....................................................
Third
Respondent
Heard
:30 January 2013
Order
: 30 January 2013
Summary :
JUDGMENT-REASONS FOR ORDER
AC BASSON, J
[1] This is an application to review and set aside an arbitration
award, in terms of which the Commissioner held on the evidence
that
there was no evidence to show that the cause of the collision that
occurred between two locomotive drivers was as a result
of a fault
attributable to the first respondent, Mr Mazibuko. The evidence
before the Commissioner was that when Mr Mazibuko entered
an area
where Mr Tshabalala already was in, the rule was that he should first
ask Mr Tshabalala, who had the right of way, whether
he could enter
the area.
[2] What does appear from the evidence is that Mr Mazibuko was aware
of this rule. He also testified that that is why he asked
Mr
Tshabalala whether he could enter the area. However, what occurred,
Mr Mazibuko said, “I heard Mr Tshabalala say that
I should
enter slowly, and that is why I did”, according to the
evidence, what he did was that he entered the area slowly.
Mr
Tshabalala, however, according to his evidence said “I told him
to wait”.
[3] I have considered the evidence, what was before the Commissioner
was that there was a misunderstanding between the two locomotive
drivers. The question is whether or not that misunderstanding could
be attributable to the negligence of Mr Mazibuko who got dismissed.
There was nothing before the Commisioner to indicate that Mr Mazibuko
was an untruthful witness nor that Mr Tshabalala was a truthful
witness.
[4] I am therefore, on the evidence placed before the Arbitrator,
satisfied that in light of the
Sidumo
1
case, the Commissioner had arrived at a reasonable decision. I am
satisfied, therefore, that the award should stand. And in the
event,
the following order is made:
4.1. The application to review is dismissed.
4.2. There is no order as to cost.
_______________________
AC BASSON J
Judge of the Labour Court
APPEARANCES:
For Applicant : Advocate A A Mphahlele
Instructed by : Snail Attorneys
For Respondent : Advocate A Redding SC
Instructed by :
.
1
2008
(2) SA 24
(CC)