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 156
|
|
Cailan Trading CC t/a Plexus Samsung v Sehunane NO and Others (JR2858/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 156 (11 July 2013)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGEMENT
Not reportable
Case no: JR 2858/12
In
the matter between:
Cailan
Trading CC t/a Plexus Samsung
.........................................................
Applicant
and
Matome
Victor Sehunane
N.O
...............................................................
1
st
Respondent
C
C M A
...................................................................................................
2
nd
Respondent
Sunny
Cecil Motloung
............................................................................
3
rd
Respondent
Heard
:
9 July 2013
Delivered
:
11 July 2013
_____
JUDGMENT
_____
BRUINDERS
AJ
The employer seeks to review and set aside an
arbitration award issued by a CCMA arbitrator dated 24 October 2012
under case number
GEAK 5291. Under the award the employee’s
dismissal was found to be unfair and he was awarded compensation.
The application
is unopposed. The main ground of review is that no
reasonable arbitrator could reasonably have made this award. I
agree. But
I am not inclined to find that the dismissal was fair.
The reason for the dismissal was that the employee had
failed to comply with a reasonable instruction. He was instructed to
tie
a cable. His version was that he was not tall enough. It is
common cause that there was no ladder. The employer’s version
is that there was a spindle he could use to reach the cable. The
arbitrator accepted the version of the employee without recourse
to
the objective evidence. It should have been established by the
arbitrator how high the cable was, how tall the employee was
and
what the height of the spindle was. These simple facts would have
enabled him to decide whether the refusal to comply with
the
instruction was reasonable in the circumstances. That was no done.
Consequently the order that I make is that the dispute
should be remitted to another arbitrator of the CCMA to decide the
employee’s
dismissal dispute. The order I make is the
following:
(a) The arbitration award issued under case number GEAK
5291 is set aside.
(b) The unfair dismissal dispute referred to the CCMA by
the third respondent is remitted for arbitration by an arbitrator
other
than the first respondent.
(c) There is no costs order.
T J Bruinders
Acing Judge of the
Labour Court