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 365
|
|
Malatji v Metal Engineering Bargaining Council and Others (JR1230/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 365 (5 December 2019)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG
Not
reportable
CASE
NO: JR1230/19
In
the matter between:
WILLIAM
NGAKA MALATJI
Applicant
And
METAL
ENGINEERING BARGAINING COUNCIL First
Respondent
MAPALO
TSATSIMPE
Second
Respondent
BURGER
& COMPANY (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
Heard
: 3 December 2019
Judgment
delivered: 5 December 2019
JUDGMENT
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
This is an unopposed application in which the applicant seeks to
review and set aside a
ruling made by the second respondent (the
arbitrator). In her ruling the arbitrator found that the applicant
had not been dismissed
by the first respondent, and on that basis,
dismissed the applicant’s referral of a dispute concerning what
he alleged was
his unfair dismissal.
[2]
There is no record of the proceedings under review, at least not in
the form of a
transcription of the evidence that was led by the
applicant. However, the arbitrator’s ruling contains what would
appear
to be a good summary of the evidence, and I will have regard
to that summary for the purposes of the present application. The
arbitrator
concluded that the applicant had not established the fact
of his dismissal. He had given contradictory evidence, and failed to
produce documentation on which he relied. He accepted a form from his
employer stating that his employment had terminated on account
of the
expiry of his contract, and used the form to claim benefits. The
applicant’s referral was accordingly dismissed.
[3]
The application for review was completed on a standard form issued by
the registrar’s
office. The application contains no more than a
recitation of the version given at the arbitration hearing and
rejected by the
arbitrator. There are no grounds for review
recognised by law. The applicant is simply dissatisfied with the
outcome, and seeks
a different outcome in this court. Of course, that
remedy is not available to him. The applicant has failed to assert
let alone
establish that the arbitrator’s decision was so
unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could reach it on the
evidence.
The arbitrator considered the evidence before her,
appreciated the nature of the enquiry that she was to conduct and
made a decision
that was reasonable in the circumstances. In these
circumstances, the application to review her ruling stands to be
dismissed.
I make the following order:
1.
The application is dismissed.
André van Niekerk
Judge
REPRESENTATION
For the applicant: In person