About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 434
|
|
Mkhaba v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR3062/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 434 (11 December 2015)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
IN JOHANNESBURG
Not
reportable
Case no: JR
3062/12
In
the matter between:
KHULULIWE
MKHABA
APPLICANT
AND
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
FIRST
RESPONDENT
MOTLATSI PHALA (
N.O.
)
SECOND
RESPONDENT
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
THIRD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
LAGRANGE,
J
[1]
The parties as cited in the
review judgement. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal but
despite failing to file submissions
timeously, has not even done so
after being reminded to do so in writing.
[2]
Accordingly, the matter falls
to be decided on the applicant’s notice of appeal.
[3]
The applicant’s first
ground of appeal is that the court erred in deciding that it was
irrelevant what two of the employer’s
witnesses testified to as
to the appropriateness of her dismissal or what the employer might
have done if she had approached it
to discuss the security system. As
I mentioned in the judgment, the statement by Mr Rasilingwani about
the appropriate sanction
was made in the context of it being assumed
that the applicant had inherited a pre-existing practice of using the
pre-signed forms,
which was not the case. Further, as mentioned in my
judgment, about what clearly troubled Rasilingwani, even if there had
been
such a pre-existing practice, the applicant appeared to see
nothing wrong with it. He made no concession that Eskom had no
problem
with her returning to work, but simply agreed that if it was
compelled to do so it would find a position for her.
[4]
Further, the applicant alleges
that the court found the evidence of the investigator and Mr
Rasilingwani was irrelevant to the determination
of the
appropriateness of the sanction. The judgment did no such thing but
found nothing untoward about the arbitrator preferring
the evidence
of the enquiry chairpersons who were charged with determining that
issue. Secondly, Rasilingwani’s evidence
considered in totality
and context did not support a lesser sanction.
[5]
I am satisfied in the
circumstances that is unlikely another court will come to a different
conclusion on the issues raised on appeal.
Order
[6]
The application for leave to
appeal is dismissed.
[7]
No order is made as to costs.
_____________________
R LAGRANGE, J
Judge of the
Labour Court
11 December
2015
(In chambers)