clarification. The arbitrator not only interfered in the evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, but he seemed the most active questioner.' [36] The learned judge then goes on to give very useful guidelines to arbitrators in para 31 of the judgment. In particular, he states: 'The arbitrator should always remain independent and impartial and he/she cannot that any party gain the perception that he/she is not a neutral and impartial adjudicator. In this regard the arbitrator: does not descend into the arena; does not cross-examine any witness; only ask questions for clarification or to provide guidance; (d) does not interrupt or stop cross-examination, unless it is clear that the questions being asked in cross-examination are repetitive, have already been answered, or do not have any relevance; give any indication how he or she feels about the evidence or give any indication how he or she may decide . . . . .' [37] It sets too high a standard to hold, as suggested by counsel for the employee, that an irregularity must be accompanied by malice or dishonesty in order to be reviewable. There is a line of authority which holds that arbitrator 'misconduct' connotes malice and dishonesty. We do not need to decide what constitutes misconduct in the present appeal because the matter falls for determination on the alternative ground of gross irregularity. What is clear though is that a 'gross
clarification. The arbitrator not only interfered in the evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, but he seemed the most active questioner.' [36] The learned judge then goes on to give very useful guidelines to arbitrators in para 31 of the judgment. In particular, he states: 'The arbitrator should always remain independent and impartial and he/she cannot that any party gain the perception that he/she is not a neutral and impartial adjudicator. In this regard the arbitrator: does not descend into the arena; does not cross-examine any witness; only ask questions for clarification or to provide guidance; (d) does not interrupt or stop cross-examination, unless it is clear that the questions being asked in cross-examination are repetitive, have already been answered, or do not have any relevance; give any indication how he or she feels about the evidence or give any indication how he or she may decide . . . . .' [37] It sets too high a standard to hold, as suggested by counsel for the employee, that an irregularity must be accompanied by malice or dishonesty in order to be reviewable. There is a line of authority which holds that arbitrator 'misconduct' connotes malice and dishonesty. We do not need to decide what constitutes misconduct in the present appeal because the matter falls for determination on the alternative ground of gross irregularity. What is clear though is that a 'gross
Atlantic%20Chicken%20Company%20(Pty)%20Ltd%20v%20Mwandingi%20(SA%2045-2012)%20[2014]%20NASC%20(15%20July%202014).docx