A
party who is dissatisfied with a CCMA arbitration award may seek to have it
reviewed on limited grounds.
It
is important to note that the grounds for reviewing an arbitration award are
limited and that a party cannot seek to have the award reviewed simply because
they disagree with it.
The
Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd [2007]ZACC 22 case is a landmark
decision that provides guidance on the standard of review to be applied in
cases where an arbitration award is being challenged.
The
Sidumo test, as it has come to be known, requires the court to consider
two questions when reviewing an arbitration award:
- Whether
the arbitrator's decision was one that a reasonable decision-maker could
have made in the circumstances. This question requires the court to
consider whether the arbitrator took into account all relevant facts and
applicable law and whether the decision was rational and justifiable.
- Whether
the decision was one that a reasonable arbitrator could have made. This
question requires the court to consider the specific context of the
dispute, including the nature of the parties' relationship, the nature of
the dispute, and the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement
or employment contract.
The
Sidumo test emphasises the importance of respecting the role of the arbitrator
as an expert decision-maker and of giving regard to the arbitrator's decision
unless it is clearly unreasonable.
Before
seeking to have an arbitration award reviewed, it is advisable to consult with an
attorney who is experienced to determine whether there are grounds for review
and what the prospects of success may be.