IN THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING COUNCIL HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: MEGA 38052 In the matter

between: Mark Begbie and Weir Minerals Africa (Pty)Ltd Respondent Applicant

PRE-ARBITRATION MUNUTES

1.

SETTLEMENT The parties have not yet canvassed the possibility of a settlement of the dispute.

2.

COMMON CAUSE FACTS Does the Applicant agree that the following facts are common cause: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 The Applicant was employed at the Respondent as Acting HOD Maintenance? The Applicant commenced services on 16 February 2010? The Applicants salary per month was R _____? The Applicant was charged for Gross misconduct: Driving a vehicle without a drivers licence; and Fraud in that he have stated in his CV that he has a drivers licence(EB), which he did not have? 2.5 2.6 The Applicant pleaded not guilty to these charges? The Applicant was found guilty for: Gross misconduct: Driving a vehicle without a drivers licence; and found not guilty for: Fraud in that he have stated in his CV that he has a drivers licence (EB), which he did not have? 2.7 As a result of being found guilty of: Gross misconduct: Driving a vehicle without a drivers licence, he was dismissed?

2
Document last saved: 31/07/2013 03:17 AM

2.8

The Applicant had no disciplinary record pertaining to any pervious warnings for misconduct?

2.9

Prior to the Applicant being charged of driving without a drivers licence, he was on several occasions victimised when he was threatened of dismissal for allegedly taking a bribe, theft, not being a qualified electrician and he was told that his days at the Respondent were numbered, without producing any proof and the Applicant denying these allegations?

2.10 2.11

A disciplinary hearing was held and the Applicant was dismissed on 13 September 2012? The Applicant lodged an appeal against his dismissal and his appeal was denied on 20 September 2012?

2.12 2.13

The Applicant held a valid learner drivers licence? The company policy does not contain a provision that employees should have a valid drivers licence?

2.14

The Applicant was never involved in a company vehicle accident, which was the property of the Respondent?

2.15

At the time of the Applicants employment, a valid drivers licence was not a requirement by the Respondent for performing his duties?

2.16

The Applicant did not breach the trust relationship with the Respondent as his actions do not construe dishonesty?

3.

FACTS THAT ARE IN DISPUTE To be determined from the responses received to the pre-arbitration questionnaire.

4.

REQUEST FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS AND ADMISSIONS The Respondent requests the following further particulars and admissions from the Applicant for purposes of the arbitration:

4.1.

Does the Respondent admit that there is no rule at the workplace for which the Applicant was found guilty of?

4.2.

Does the Respondent admit that the Applicant reported that another employee contravened a rule regarding the operation of a machine without a licence?

3
Document last saved: 31/07/2013 03:17 AM

4.3.

Does the Respondent admit that it failed to discipline this other employee due to operating a machine without a licence?

4.4.

Does the Respondent admit that operating such machine without a licence contravened the Occupation Health and Safety regulations?

4.5.

Does the Respondent admit that it acted inconsistently by dismissing the Applicant while other employees were not prosecuted or disciplined for actions which could be compared to the Applicants conduct?

4.6.

The Applicant demands that the Respondent discovers all such forms that were returned by all relevant employees and their proof of drivers licences in terms of the Flee t Controller, Me. Susan Walker, email dated 10 September 2012.

4.7.

The Applicant demands that the Respondent discovers all names of employees at the time of the Applicants dismissal who had access to driving the company vehicles?

4.8.

Does the Respondent admit that the Applicant actions do not construe Gross Misconduct?

5.

LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE The Arbitrator is required to determine whether the Applicants dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

6.

RELIEF CLAIMED 6.1. The Applicant is required to indicate what relief he seeks. Maximum Compensation 6.2. The Respondent seeks the dismissal of Applicants claim.

7.

DISCOVERY

The parties agreed: 1.1 that the Respondent will submit a bundle of documents at the pre-trial meeting, where after the Applicant will be able to submit additional documents to the Applicant, if any, within 14 days; and 1.2 to exchange and to file at the Arbitration the consolidated bundle of documents at least fourteen days prior to the trial date.

4
Document last saved: 31/07/2013 03:17 AM

8.

STATUS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The parties agreed that: 1.3 All documents in the bundle are what they purport to be unless objection is made to a specific document 7 days before the commencement of the trial; and 1.4 Further, those copies of documents may be used without producing the originals, subject to either party's right to require the originals.

9.

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT The Respondent proposes that the parties agree that there is no need for the admission of evidence on affidavit

10.

ONUS TO BEGIN The Respondent will begin with the leading of evidence as it is required to prove the substantive and procedural fairness of the Applicants dismissal.

11.

PRELIMINARY POINTS The Respondent proposes that there are no preliminary points to be determined.

12.

INSPECTIONS The Respondent proposes that the parties agree that there is no need for an on-the-spot investigation at this stage.

13.

WITNESSES The Respondent proposes that the parties agree that each party shall be responsible for securing the presence at the arbitration of any witnesses that it intends to call.

14.

EXCHANGE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS The Respondent proposes there is no need for witness statements .

15.

EXPERT EVIDENCE The Respondent proposes that it be agreed that there appears to be no necessity for expert evidence but that if such evidence becomes necessary, the rules of this forum in relation to expert evidence will be complied with by the parties.

5
Document last saved: 31/07/2013 03:17 AM

16.

OTHER MEANS BY WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE SHORTENED The Respondent proposes that there are no other means at this stage by which the proceedings may be shortened.

17.

MINUTES OF PRE-ARBITRATION CONFERENCE The Respondent proposes to prepare the pre-arbitration minute to be signed by both parties. The Applicant reserves all his rights to enrol the matter for arbitration should the minutes not be signed before 28 February 2013.

18.

ESTIMATED DURATION OF ARBITRATION The Respondent is of the view that the arbitration will endure for approximately 1 (one) full day.

19.

INTERPRETER The Respondent proposes that there appears to be no necessity for the appointment of an interpreter.

Dated at ___________ on this ____________________

day of February 2013.

Dated at Pretoria on this ___ day of February 2013. _____________________

6
Document last saved: 31/07/2013 03:17 AM