Understanding the Review Process of CCMA Awards and Arbitration Decisions

What is Considered a “Defect” in an Award?

A party wishing to challenge a CCMA decision must file their application with the Labour Court within six weeks of receiving the award. The alleged defect could involve several issues, including:

• Misconduct by the commissioner in their duties as an arbitrator.
• Gross irregularities in how the arbitration proceedings were conducted.
• The commissioner exceeding their powers.
• The award being improperly obtained.

The Standard for Review

The Constitutional Court has clarified that the standard for reviewing an award is whether the decision made by the commissioner is something that a reasonable decision-maker could have reached. Courts typically do not interfere with the award unless there is clear evidence that the commissioner overlooked the key issue or failed to properly consider the facts. The court will evaluate whether the commissioner came to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

Impact of Review on the Award

It’s important to note that simply starting the review process does not stop the enforcement of the award. To suspend enforcement, the party requesting the review must apply for an interdict (a court order to prevent enforcement) and provide security, which must be accepted by the court.

Arbitration Agreements and Their Finality

Arbitration is an alternative way to resolve disputes, especially when the parties involved agree that the decision made by the arbitrator will be final and binding. This is in line with the Arbitration Act of 1965, which upholds the finality of arbitration awards. However, when a party believes the arbitrator’s decision was unfair, they may try to have the decision reviewed and set aside by a court. The success of such an effort depends on specific circumstances.

When Can an Arbitration Award Be Reviewed and Set Aside?

In order to have an arbitration award reviewed and set aside, the party seeking the review must prove that the arbitrator committed a “gross irregularity” during the proceedings. A gross irregularity refers to a significant error that impacts the fairness of the process. It is important to understand that simply because the arbitrator makes an error in applying the law or misinterprets the facts does not automatically mean the award can be set aside. As long as the arbitrator conducts a fair inquiry, errors made during the process will generally not be enough to justify setting aside the award.

However, if the arbitrator fundamentally misunderstood their role in the arbitration or failed to ensure a fair hearing for the party involved, this could be grounds for having the award set aside. For example, if the arbitrator’s actions resulted in one party being denied a fair trial of the issues, this may be considered a gross irregularity.

Conclusion

To successfully challenge an arbitration award, the party seeking to have it set aside must prove that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity that denied them a fair hearing. If such a case cannot be demonstrated, the award will typically stand.

It is advisable for parties entering into arbitration agreements to include an appeal clause in their contracts. Many individuals are dissatisfied with the outcome of arbitration, not necessarily because of the process itself but due to the result. An appeal clause could provide additional reassurance and options for parties who may be unhappy with the decision.

The content does not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Kindly contact us on info@cklaw.co.za or 021 556 9864 to speak to one of our attorneys.