Jordex Agencies v Gugubele NO (2971/12, J1609/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 87 (11 March 2015)

An award is not unreasonable just because the arbiter erred in confusing two persons who were actually the same person; referred to an incorrect item in schedule 8 and omitted to deal with the validity of the rule forming the basis of the dismissal.  How management thought it would be fair to dismiss a cleaner with nearly 10 years ‘clean’ service for leaving work early, after having been allowed to do so for 4 years, beggars belief.

Heard:             14 August 2014           Delivered:       11 March 2015

LALLIE J

Introduction

[1]        The applicant brought an application to review and set aside an arbitration award of the first respondent (“the Commissioner”) in which she found the dismissal of the third respondent both substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered her reinstatement.  The third respondent filed an application to have the arbitration award made an order of court.  The applications were consolidated and heard together.  The parties agreed that if the review application is unsuccessful then the award will be made an order of court, however, should it be successful the other application fall away.

Factual background

[2]        The third respondent worked for the applicant as a cleaner from 1 October 2003 until her dismissal on 2 August 2012 for living the workplace without permission.  She challenged the fairness of her dismissal at the second respondent (“the CCMA”) where the Commissioner issued the award which the applicant seeks this court to review and set aside.  The review application is opposed by the third respondent.