The criterion of justifiability as a ground for review following Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines (2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC)
- Fischat, Herbert Robert James Falconer
- Authors: Fischat, Herbert Robert James Falconer
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , udicial review -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Mineral industries -- South Africa -- Employees , Conflict of laws -- Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10246 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019792
- Description: This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Fischat, Herbert Robert James Falconer
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , udicial review -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Mineral industries -- South Africa -- Employees , Conflict of laws -- Labor laws and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10246 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1019792
- Description: This treatise will focus on the review of labour arbitration awards provided for under the oversight of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), bargaining councils, statutory councils, accredited private agencies and approved private arbitration tribunals. The general grounds of review applicable to the arbitration awards of the different bodies are set out. Thereafter the case of Carephone (Pty) Limited v Marcus NO & others (1998) 19 ILJ 1452 (LAC) is analysed and the core principles pertaining to the justifiability test are clarified for the first time in the forum of the Labour Appeal Court. The judicial rationale for the relevance and applicability of the test to CCMA arbitration proceedings and criticisms of the test are examined. The justifiability tests are only applicable to review proceedings in CCMA matters and not available to private arbitration review matters. There are however three approaches which are being suggested for the application of the justifiability tests to private arbitration review. Firstly, it is suggested that the Arbitration Act could be interpreted to include the justifiability test under the statutory review grounds. Secondly, the arbitration agreements could be interpreted to include an implied term that the arbitrator is under a duty to give justifiable awards. Finally, it can be submitted that the law should be developed by reading into all arbitration agreements the ability to arbitrators to give justifiable awards. Since the judgment of Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC) various critical questions arose in relation to the interpretation and application for the purpose of dealing with subsequent review applications. Firstly, this research paper will seek to establish whether the courts in subsequent matters to the Sidumo judgment have interpreted reasonableness as a test or ground for review. Secondly the research paper will scrutinise case law whether the reviewing court is entitled to rely on and consider reasons other than those provided for by the commissioner in his award to determine inter alia, the reasonableness of his decision arrived at. The Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case rejected the so-called employer’s test, stating that ultimately the commissioner’s sense of fairness is what must prevail and not the employer’s view. Consequently an impartial determination whether or not a dismissal was fair is likely to promote labour peace amongst the labour force. The test arrived at by the Constitutional Court in the Sidumo case for determining whether a decision or arbitration award of a CCMA commissioner is reasonable, is a stringent test that will ensure that such awards are not easily interfered with. The question to be asked in determining whether there has been compliance with the standard is whether the decision of the commissioner is one which a reasonable decision maker could have reached. This approach will underpin the primary objectives of the Labour Relations Act which is the effective resolution of disputes. This finding will be apparent from important cases decided and discussed after the Sidumo landmark ruling.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
A comparison of the South African and Namibian labour dispute resolution system
- Authors: Musukubili, Felix
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- Namibia , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- Namibia
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10207 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1040 , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- Namibia , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- Namibia
- Description: The dynamic social and economic conditions in Namibia warranted a periodic review of labour legislation. Given these needs, uhe then Ministry of Labour, undertook a project in 1998, to assess the effectiveness of the first post kndependence Labour Act, 1992 (Act No 6 of 1992) a trirartite task force was established which recommended the amendment of the 1992 Act. This led to the enactment of the Labour Act, 2004 which introduced a new system of dispute prevention and resolution. However, the 2004 Act could not be put into effect in its entirety, because of its technical flaws and the fact that the Namibian Employers Federation (NEF) took issue with some of the provisions of the Act, such as leave provisions. In 2005, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare with its social partners undertook a complete technical review of the entire 2004 Act. As a result, In 2007, the new Labour Bill 2007 was tabled in Parliament, which eventually adopted it as the Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) which became operational on the 1st November 2008. The new Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) brings in sweeping changes to the familiar terrain of labour law and industrial relations practice in Namibia. The new Act, has done aware with the District Labour Court system, in its place comes the Labour Commissioner. The rudimentary dispute- settlement mechanisms of the old (first ) Labour Act, 1992 ( Act No 6 of 1992) have made way for the more sophisticated, yet speedier and more economical system of alternative dispute resolution through arbitration and conciliation by the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Act, 2007, requires parties to the labour dispute to seek conciliation before either taking industrial action or seeking adjudicative solutions to the dispute. Not only does the Labour Act, establish or makes provision for the appointment of the Labour Commissioner to provide for dispute resolution, it also permits parties to establish their own process for dispute resolution through a private arbitration route. Faced with this daunting array of untested rules and institutions, I have approached the writing of this work with some trepidation. My aim is to provide a thoroughgoing commentary on the provisions relating to dispute resolution. In the absence of much authoritative interpretation, I had to rely heavily on past practices and foreign South African precedents to identify the construction that judges and arbitrators are likely to arrive at. The present treatise provides a, comprehensive and integrated commentary for all involvement in the resolution of labour disputes in Namibia; it further provides rules and procedures which govern statutory disputes resolution through the Labour Commissioner. I sincerely hope that this paper, will prove useful to all those involved in labour law and industrial relations practice, as well as to teachers and students of this subject.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Musukubili, Felix
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- Namibia , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- Namibia
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10207 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1040 , Dispute resolution (Law) -- South Africa , Dispute resolution (Law) -- Namibia , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- Namibia
- Description: The dynamic social and economic conditions in Namibia warranted a periodic review of labour legislation. Given these needs, uhe then Ministry of Labour, undertook a project in 1998, to assess the effectiveness of the first post kndependence Labour Act, 1992 (Act No 6 of 1992) a trirartite task force was established which recommended the amendment of the 1992 Act. This led to the enactment of the Labour Act, 2004 which introduced a new system of dispute prevention and resolution. However, the 2004 Act could not be put into effect in its entirety, because of its technical flaws and the fact that the Namibian Employers Federation (NEF) took issue with some of the provisions of the Act, such as leave provisions. In 2005, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare with its social partners undertook a complete technical review of the entire 2004 Act. As a result, In 2007, the new Labour Bill 2007 was tabled in Parliament, which eventually adopted it as the Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) which became operational on the 1st November 2008. The new Labour Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007) brings in sweeping changes to the familiar terrain of labour law and industrial relations practice in Namibia. The new Act, has done aware with the District Labour Court system, in its place comes the Labour Commissioner. The rudimentary dispute- settlement mechanisms of the old (first ) Labour Act, 1992 ( Act No 6 of 1992) have made way for the more sophisticated, yet speedier and more economical system of alternative dispute resolution through arbitration and conciliation by the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Act, 2007, requires parties to the labour dispute to seek conciliation before either taking industrial action or seeking adjudicative solutions to the dispute. Not only does the Labour Act, establish or makes provision for the appointment of the Labour Commissioner to provide for dispute resolution, it also permits parties to establish their own process for dispute resolution through a private arbitration route. Faced with this daunting array of untested rules and institutions, I have approached the writing of this work with some trepidation. My aim is to provide a thoroughgoing commentary on the provisions relating to dispute resolution. In the absence of much authoritative interpretation, I had to rely heavily on past practices and foreign South African precedents to identify the construction that judges and arbitrators are likely to arrive at. The present treatise provides a, comprehensive and integrated commentary for all involvement in the resolution of labour disputes in Namibia; it further provides rules and procedures which govern statutory disputes resolution through the Labour Commissioner. I sincerely hope that this paper, will prove useful to all those involved in labour law and industrial relations practice, as well as to teachers and students of this subject.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
The role of reasonableness in the review of labour arbitration awards
- Authors: Botma, Carli Helena
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Arbitration and award -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10194 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1035 , Arbitration and award -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa
- Description: The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 in section 145 and the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 in section 33 uses wording very similar to one another to specifically enable the labour court to review CCMA and private arbitration awards respectively. As a result, labour arbitration award reviews are regarded as part of the family of special statutory reviews; the implication of such a classification being that the situation specific statutory provision(s) and the jurisprudential principles developed thereunder are applicable rather than those applicable to reviews in general. When the common purpose of the review procedure is then read with the legislature’s objective of quickly and finally resolving labour disputes at arbitration level as well as the limited grounds for review as provided for in the LRA and the AA, indications are that the labour courts’ review powers should be restrictively interpreted. However, because the making of CCMA arbitration awards also constitutes administrative action, the review thereof is also influenced by the constitutional right to just administrative action and reasonableness in particular. This does however not mean that applicants on review can rely directly on section 33 of the Final Constitution or on the broader grounds of section 6 of the PAJA to review CCMA arbitration awards on the basis of unreasonableness. Section 145 of the LRA constitutes administrative action legislation within the specialised labour law sphere and reasonableness is not a ground mentioned therein. A constitutionally consistent interpretation of section 145 however has the effect that reasonableness suffuses the statutory defined grounds for review; a state of affairs that does not threaten the restrictive scope of CCMA arbitration award reviews. In terms thereof, courts on review must establish whether the decision, alleged to have been reached by the commissioner as a result of the occurrence of one or more of the section 145 grounds for review, is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. This interpretation accords far better with the legislature’s specific objectives pertaining to labour arbitration award reviews and the permissible range of reasonableness further ensures that awards are not easily interfered with on review. When a court is then called upon to determine whether or not a decision is reviewable in terms of section 145, it is entitled to have regard to both the award and the record of the proceedings. If, after such scrutiny, the court is of the opinion that the decision was arrived at as a result of the occurrence of a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the LRA, the decision should be reviewed and set aside irrespective of the fact that the outcome can be sustained by other reasons also identifiable from the record; the focus of review always being on the commissioner’s process of reasoning and the way in which he arrived at his findings rather than the outcome of the process. A court should however be mindful of the fact that erroneous reasons for findings per se are not reviewable grounds, but at best serve as evidence of a reviewable ground that will in conjunction with other considerations have to be sufficiently compelling to justify an inference that the decision is unreasonable. In the case of jurisdictional reviews, the reasonableness standard is also applicable because the focus is on the commissioner’s subjective reasons for his findings rather than the jurisdictional fact’s objective existence. A court on review can accordingly set aside a decision following upon the non-observance of a jurisdictional fact if the commissioner, in deciding that the jurisdictional fact existed, committed one or more of the section 145 grounds for review. In the case of private arbitration awards, applicants seeking a review must do so on the grounds recognised in section 33 of the AA and reasonableness is not one of them. This is however not the only reason why these awards are also not subject to the scrutiny of the reasonableness test on review. The other reason relates to the fact that the issuing of private arbitration awards does not constitute administrative action. The disputing parties can also not by agreement incorporate the reasonableness standard into private arbitration award reviews conducted by the labour court. Such parties are however entitled to establish a private appeal or private review body in their arbitration agreement, clothing it with the powers that they wish to confer upon it, including the ability to review an award subject to the reasonableness standard. , Abstract
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Botma, Carli Helena
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Arbitration and award -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10194 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1035 , Arbitration and award -- South Africa , Arbitration, Industrial -- South Africa
- Description: The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 in section 145 and the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 in section 33 uses wording very similar to one another to specifically enable the labour court to review CCMA and private arbitration awards respectively. As a result, labour arbitration award reviews are regarded as part of the family of special statutory reviews; the implication of such a classification being that the situation specific statutory provision(s) and the jurisprudential principles developed thereunder are applicable rather than those applicable to reviews in general. When the common purpose of the review procedure is then read with the legislature’s objective of quickly and finally resolving labour disputes at arbitration level as well as the limited grounds for review as provided for in the LRA and the AA, indications are that the labour courts’ review powers should be restrictively interpreted. However, because the making of CCMA arbitration awards also constitutes administrative action, the review thereof is also influenced by the constitutional right to just administrative action and reasonableness in particular. This does however not mean that applicants on review can rely directly on section 33 of the Final Constitution or on the broader grounds of section 6 of the PAJA to review CCMA arbitration awards on the basis of unreasonableness. Section 145 of the LRA constitutes administrative action legislation within the specialised labour law sphere and reasonableness is not a ground mentioned therein. A constitutionally consistent interpretation of section 145 however has the effect that reasonableness suffuses the statutory defined grounds for review; a state of affairs that does not threaten the restrictive scope of CCMA arbitration award reviews. In terms thereof, courts on review must establish whether the decision, alleged to have been reached by the commissioner as a result of the occurrence of one or more of the section 145 grounds for review, is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. This interpretation accords far better with the legislature’s specific objectives pertaining to labour arbitration award reviews and the permissible range of reasonableness further ensures that awards are not easily interfered with on review. When a court is then called upon to determine whether or not a decision is reviewable in terms of section 145, it is entitled to have regard to both the award and the record of the proceedings. If, after such scrutiny, the court is of the opinion that the decision was arrived at as a result of the occurrence of a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the LRA, the decision should be reviewed and set aside irrespective of the fact that the outcome can be sustained by other reasons also identifiable from the record; the focus of review always being on the commissioner’s process of reasoning and the way in which he arrived at his findings rather than the outcome of the process. A court should however be mindful of the fact that erroneous reasons for findings per se are not reviewable grounds, but at best serve as evidence of a reviewable ground that will in conjunction with other considerations have to be sufficiently compelling to justify an inference that the decision is unreasonable. In the case of jurisdictional reviews, the reasonableness standard is also applicable because the focus is on the commissioner’s subjective reasons for his findings rather than the jurisdictional fact’s objective existence. A court on review can accordingly set aside a decision following upon the non-observance of a jurisdictional fact if the commissioner, in deciding that the jurisdictional fact existed, committed one or more of the section 145 grounds for review. In the case of private arbitration awards, applicants seeking a review must do so on the grounds recognised in section 33 of the AA and reasonableness is not one of them. This is however not the only reason why these awards are also not subject to the scrutiny of the reasonableness test on review. The other reason relates to the fact that the issuing of private arbitration awards does not constitute administrative action. The disputing parties can also not by agreement incorporate the reasonableness standard into private arbitration award reviews conducted by the labour court. Such parties are however entitled to establish a private appeal or private review body in their arbitration agreement, clothing it with the powers that they wish to confer upon it, including the ability to review an award subject to the reasonableness standard. , Abstract
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »