About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCJHB 338
|
|
Ngcobo v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2601/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 338 (18 October 2019)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
case
no:
JR2601/17
In
the matter between:
MBONGENI
ERNEST NGCOBO
Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
First
Respondent
MAPUTLE
MOHLALA
Second
Respondent
BIDVEST
PROTEA COIN (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
Considered:
In Chambers
Delivered
:
18 October 2019
JUDGEMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL
NTSHEBE,
AJ
[1]
The applicant seeks an application for leave to appeal the whole
judgment
handed down by the Court on 22 May 2019 wherein, the
arbitration award issued by the arbitrator was reviewed and set
aside.
[2]
There are several grounds of leave to appeal. I have considered them,
however, I will not deal with all of them in this judgement. One of
the grounds of appeal is that the Court ignored evidence of
the third
respondent’s witness, Mr Van Eeden, who testified that he did
not give the applicant time to consult with him because
his contract
does not make provision for it. There is no merit in this ground of
appeal. It is clear from the record that the applicant
was given an
opportunity to consult his attorney regarding the form and he was
given such an opportunity.
[3]
Another ground of appeal is that the Court erred when it concluded
that
the arbitrator ignored the evidence of the third respondent’s
main witness who testified that the examiner could not conduct
the
polygraph test without the consent form being signed as it is a
prerequisite. The evidence was clear that for the examiner
to conduct
the polygraph test, a consent form is a requirement. This consent
form cannot be equated with consent in terms of the
employment
contract. There is no merit to the grounds of appeal.
[4]
I am not convinced that there are reasonable prospects that another
court
might arrive at a different decision.
[5]
In the premise the following order is made:
Order
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
_________________________
T.
Ntshebe
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa