по Marius Scheepers 3 лет назад
443
Больше похоже на это
Insurer rejected claim
Agreed to claim
DA17/2019
Solidarity obo Kruger v Transnet SOC Ltd t/a Transnet National Ports Authority and Others (DA17/2019) [2020] ZALAC 49 (1 December 2020)
[26] In considering sanction in the inquiry, the arbitrator sat in the stead of the employer. In doing so he was required to have regard to relevant circumstances. These included the nature and importance of the rules breached, the gravity of the misconduct, the harm caused by the employees conduct, whether the trust relationship had broken down, whether progressive discipline or dismissal for a first offence was appropriate, whether continued employment was intolerable, the employees personal circumstances, length of service and previous disciplinary record, the nature of the job and any relevant aggravating factors.
[25]...No other employee testified that a continued working relationship with the employee given this conduct was intolerable. The employees long service and clean disciplinary record were important mitigating factors, which required careful consideration to determine whether dismissal was appropriate or whether, having regard to the principle of progressive discipline, the imposition of a sanction short of dismissal was warranted. The failure on the part of the arbitrator to have proper regard to such factors constituted a material irregularity and resulted in an outcome which was one, on the material before him, that a reasonable commissioner could not reach.[12] In finding differently the Court a quo erred.
[29] It follows for these reasons that the appeal must succeed and the orders of the Labour Court set aside. Given that the dismissal of the employee was unfair, there is no reason why the primary remedy of reinstatement into the same or similar position should not be granted, with a final written warning valid for twelve (12) months cautioning the employee not to commit similar misconduct in the future.
JR1043/18
JR 1386/2018
Adeyemi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1386/2018) [2020] ZALCJHB 185 (14 July 2020)
progressive dissipline
Somoyo v Ross Poultry Breeders (Pty) Ltd[[1997] ZALAC 3 (26 June 1997)] where progressive discipline in the case of negligence was not required where the degree of professional skill which must be required is so high and the potential consequences of the smallest departure from that high standard are so serious that one failure to perform in accordance with those standards is enough to justify dismissal.
dismissal fair
JR 508/18
Long v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 508/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 222 (15 May 2020)
The test to determine negligence has been formulated in Kruger v Coetzee[1966 (2) SA 428 (AD)]
(iii) the defendant failed to take such steps.
(ii) would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
(i) would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(a) a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant-
For the purposes of liability culpa arises if
In Kruger supra, the following was said:
JR592/18
Solidarity obo Motogi Sh v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR592/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 76 (12 May 2020)
[14] The Applicant raised the issue of Nicole Govender who was also found guilty of dishonesty but was not dismissed. However, no further information nor evidence on similarities was submitted at the arbitration to establish a pattern of inconsistency before the Second Respondent. In National Union of Mineworkers on behalf of Butsane v Anglo Platinum Mine (Rustenburg Section)[(2014) 35 ILJ 2406 (LAC) at 2417 para 39.] it was held that "a generalised allegation is never good enough. A concrete allegation identifying who the persons are who were treated differently and the basis upon which they ought not to have been treated differently must be set out clearly."
[15] In Southern Sun Hotels Interest (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others[[2007] 11 BLLR 1128 (CC).] the Court held that an inconsistency claim will f9'tl where an employer is able to differentiate between employees who committed similar transgressions on the basis of, inter alia, differences in personal circumstances, the severity of the misconduct or on the basis of other material factors.
'The parity principle was designed to prevent unjustified selective punishment or dismissal and to ensure that like cases are treated alike. It was not intended to force an employer to mete out the same punishment to employees with different personal circumstances just because they are guilty of the same offence".
a review based solely on the fact that the Commissioner did not take certain factors into account or placed undue importance on certain factors (process related factors) does not comply with the Sidumo test and will most likely not succeed.[10] In essence the Court has to find whether the decision reached was unreasonable or put in another way whether the decision that the arbitrator arrived at is one that falls within a band of decisions to which a reasonable decision maker could come to on the available material."
[19] In Frans Masubelele v PHSDSBC and others[Frans Masubelele v PHSDSBC and others (Case No: JR1151/08). Delivered on 17 January 2013.], Snyman AJ dealt with misconduct involving dishonesty where dismissal was fortified and the principles applicable to inconsistency reiterated. He found that the employee party has the evidential burden to show inconsistency and that no inconsistency was shown.
"[17] In terms of the judgment by the Labour Appeal Court in Goldfields Mining SA (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v CCMA and others[Goldfields Mining SA (Ply) Ltd (K/oof Gold Mine) v CCMA and others 2014 (1) BLLR 20 (LAC).] in which the Court decided that
[16] In NUM and Another v Amcoal Colliery t/a Arnot Colliery and Another[[2000] 8 BLLR 869 (LAC) at para 19.] it was held ;that:
JR1731/19
Cable Tapes Africa v Sehunane and Others (JR1731/19) [2020] ZALCJHB 72 (12 May 2020)
Grogan John: Workplace Law 10th Ed 20090, ch 13-p 226
[16] The above annotations warrant that I brood over what constitutes the misconduct of gross negligence. Tritely, in labour law, as suggested by Grogan, negligence bears the same meaning as it does in other areas of the law namely the culpable failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a reasonable person. In the workplace context, the reasonable person would be the reasonable employee with experience, skill and qualifications comparable to the accused employee. The learned author continues and says: Negligence may manifest itself in acts or omissions. The test is whether a reasonable employee in the position of the accused employee would have foreseen the possibility of harm and taken steps to avoid that harm. Employees may be guilty of negligence even if no harm results from their acts or omissions; what matters is if they might have caused harm. Negligence is akin to carelessness; if the employee actually foresaw the harm, the misconduct would be classified as deliberate, not negligent, and would self-evidently be more serious. Negligence and poor work performance overlap to the extent that work negligently performed is poor. However, poor work performance connotes consistent slipshod work. A single negligent act seldom warrants dismissal at first instance, unless it is of a kind so gross as to amount to recklessness.
...the whole tape that Mr Biyase was working on was defective and had to be scrapped. As a result, the applicant suffered financial loss in the amount of R35 000.00. According to Mr Sevnarayn, Mr Biyase could not provide any reason why he had failed to stop the machine when he realized that the defect on the tape was extensive.
JR 284/2019
Lucerne Transport v TAWUSA and Others (JR 284/2019) [2020] ZALCJHB 195 (7 May 2020)
The Applicant checked the Respondents WhatsApp status and found two gruesome videos. The first video clip was of two people, the one decapitating the other and in the second video a person was cutting up another person, whilst still alive. Mr Henery stated that as a Lucerne driver, the Respondent represents the Applicant and he is the face of the Applicant. Anyone who had the Respondents number, would be able to view these video clips and it violated everything the Applicant stood for. The video clips were extremely offensive.
[15] It was expected of drivers to have a device on which the Applicant via its controllers could communicate with them. The device is the personal property of the driver. Mr Henery testified that the controllers who viewed the video clips were shocked. He explained that what an employee puts up in social media can have a direct impact on the working relationship with his / her employer.
[22] In cross-examination Mr Parsons confirmed that there are no terms and conditions attached to the use of a drivers phone, the only condition is that the driver must have a phone to stay in contact with the Applicant. The Applicant does not provide the drivers with phones.
[50] The arbitrator found that the Applicant was unable to establish that the Respondent threatened or caused any violence in the workplace or to any staff members. The arbitrator further found that the phone was the Respondents private phone and absent any policy or agreement entered into in respect of the use of his personal mobile phone, the Applicant could not interfere in that regard.
[49] To support this charge as a fair reason to dismiss the Respondent, the Applicant had to adduce evidence to show that the Respondent indeed incited violence and that he had done so by displaying the gruesome and murderous activity on his personal WhatsApp profile.
[48] The first count of misconduct that the Respondent faced was that he had incited violence by displaying gruesome and murderous activity on his personal WhatsApp profile.
JR 2036/17
Department of Education: Mpumalanga Province and Others v Mthala N.O and Others (JR 2036/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 202 (21 April 2020)
Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank & others (2002) 23 ILJ 1243 (LAC)
courts reference there to the elements of dishonesty. as entailing a lack of integrity or straightforwardness and in particular, a willingness to steal, cheat lie or act fraudulently.
manually entered by Xaba and approved by Sihlangu, was just too great to ascribe to a mistake[27]...In short - the evidence ineluctably points to an intent of the part of both employees to act, in the words of Nedcor Bank Ltd, without integrity or straightforwardness, i.e. dishonestly. Given the serious nature of the misconduct, the penalty of dismissal is appropriate. In summary, there are no other reasons, having regard to the record, to justify the arbitrators conclusion.
In Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank & others (2002) 23 ILJ 1243 (LAC), the court referred to the elements of dishonesty as entailing a lack of integrity or straightforwardness and in particular, a willingness to steal, cheat, lie or act fraudulently. While this judgment is relied on by the arbitrator to find, it would seem, that there was no evidence of any dishonest intent on the part of either of the employees, it should be recalled that the facts of that case concerned conduct by the employees of a bank and an ATM situated at an airport. The ATM had run out of cash over a particularly busy weekend, and could not be loaded until the Monday. The employee concerned and his supervisor decided not to leave the ATM in a condition that would alert the airport management to the fact that the machine had run out of cash, and to disengage the machine in such a way that it failed to operate, but did not indicate that it had run of cash. The purpose of this act was to protect the bank from the wrath of the airports management. The employee was dismissed for dishonesty, in that he had allowed his supervisor to disengage the card reader. The employee was reinstated after an arbitrator hearing, a decision that was upheld by this court and the LAC. The LAC stated that to sustain the fairness of the dismissal, some intention beyond an act that is merely reckless, disobedient or foolish was required. The court found that the explanation proffered by the employee (i.e. that he wished to protect his employer from the wrath of the airports management) was entirely plausible, and that on the evidence, no other reason (let alone one related to dishonesty) suggested itself.
Although a long period of service of an employee will usually be a mitigating factor where such employee is guilty of misconduct, the point must be made that there are certain acts of misconduct which are of such a serious nature that no length of service can save an employee who is guilty of them from dismissal. To my mind one such clear act of misconduct is gross dishonesty.
[26] Ms Malulekes 24 years of service with Pick n Pay, albeit a weighty factor, must be assed with other factors. The Court should strike a balance between the period of service; the gravity of the misconduct and its impact on the employment relationship. The acts of misconduct committed in this case were of a serious nature. The dishonest acts, as testified to by Mr Masipa, destroyed the relationship of trust...I am satisfied that the sanction of dismissal was not grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the misconduct. In any event, the length of service, would not in all cases come to the aid of an employee. This Court held in Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe & others:
JA26/2019
Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Maluleke and Others (JA26/2019) [2020] ZALAC 39 (7 September 2020)
[17] During the arbitration process much was made on the issue whether Ms Maluleke rendered herself guilty of attempted fraud. In my view, that is inconsequential because where a disciplinary rule has been contravened and the employee knew that such conduct could be subjected to discipline and had not been significantly prejudiced by the incorrect characterisation of the offence, discipline commensurate to the offence found to have been committed may be imposed.[See P A K le Roux & Andr van Niekerk: The SA Law of Unfair Dismissal (Juta & Co 1994) at 102.]
[18] Fraud is constituted by the unlawful and intentional making of a misrepresentation which causes actual prejudice or which is potentially prejudicial to another.[See S v Gardener 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA) par 29; S v Prinsloo and others 2016 (2) SACR 25 (SCA) at 65 para 174.] In my view, there were various elements of deceit on the manner in which the return/refund transaction was carried out by Ms Maluleke which points to her nefarious conduct.
[24] As demonstrated, Ms Malulekes conduct was deceitful. The Labour Court erred in holding that she was not dishonest. In any event, the union in its opening address during the arbitration placed it on record that it did not dispute that this purported offence has been committed. It merely challenged that it amounted to fraud and took issue with the appropriateness of the sanction of dismissal imposed on Ms Maluleke to which I now turn.
JA96/2018
Aquarius Platinum (SA)(Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA96/2018) [2020] ZALAC 23; (2020) 41 ILJ 2059 (LAC); [2020] 11 BLLR 1071 (LAC) (18 May 2020)
[18] To articulate the notion of a misappropriation of property that is free of dishonesty is a contradiction in terms. In my view, to describe the deliberate retaining of property which the employee is not entitled to retain is not distinguishable, conceptually, from theft. Naturally, a proper appreciation of the dimension of the requisite intention in regard to misappropriation is not wholly free from difficulty. It is conceivable that a person, bona fide, intends to return an item at the time of borrowing but later changes that intention. If circumstances, where the probabilities are equally poised that at the outset, the borrower had an intention to return the item, how is the existence of the fact of a change of intention to be determined? Self-evidently, except in rare cases, that change of intention would have to inferred from the evidence. In such a case, the explanation proffered by the borrower would be of central importance. Where a borrower gives no explanation, can the inference indeed be drawn that the intention not to return the goods be made? In my view, such an inference can be drawn if, in the absence of other evidence, the probabilities lend weight to such an inference. This does not result from any onus on an employee to prove the absence of guilt; rather, it is a straightforward example of inferential reasoning to determine the probabilities on the available evidence.
[17] I disagree with this perspective of the conduct of Ngorima as articulated by the Labour Court and it cannot be endorsed. The idea that theft or dishonesty requires furtiveness or concealment is misplaced. It is true that, often, to either conceal the fact of the theft or to conceal the identity of the thief, the deed is done clandestinely. However, that is not an element of the crime. The crime of theft is based on the common sense of the ages: all that is required is that a person deliberately deprives another person of the latters property permanently. In industrial relations parlance, theft is frequently described as misappropriation of the employers property. Conceptually there is no useful distinction. The frequent resort to the lesser offence of being in unauthorised possession of the employers property, an act of misconduct listed in many disciplinary codes, caters for cases where a thieving intention is suspected and requires of employees to ensure that they do not place themselves under suspicion, relieving an employer from having to prove a specific intent.
concealment not an element of theft
JA140/2018
Samancor Limited (Eastern Chrome Mines) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Limpopo and Others (JA140/2018) [2020] ZALAC 17; [2020] 9 BLLR 908 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 2135 (LAC) (18 May 2020)
[23] The basis for the second respondents finding of inconsistency of discipline was not based on an error conducted at the disciplinary hearing of Ms Maseko. But, in any event, that she was acquitted cannot form the basis by which the finding of inconsistency of discipline can come to the aid of the other employees.
SACCAWU & others v Irvin Johnson Limited [2008] BLLR 869 (LAC)
If a chairperson conscientiously and honestly, but incorrectly, exercise his or her discretion in a particular case in a particular way, it would mean that there was unfairness towards the other employees. It would mean no more than that his or her assessment of the gravity of the disciplinary offence was wrong. It cannot be fair that other employees profit from that kind of wrong decision. In a case of plurality dismissal, a wrong decision can only be unfair if it is capricious, or induced by improper motives or, worse, by a discriminating management policy.
JA53/18
Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet v Van Dyk (JA53/18) [2020] ZALAC 4; [2020] 6 BLLR 549 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 1360 (LAC) (11 February 2020)
Wright v St Marys Hospital (1992) 13 ILJ 987 (IC); SA Quilt Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v Radebe (1994) 15 ILJ 115 (LAC) at 124.
[39] Incompatibility involves the inability on the part of an employee to work in harmony either within the corporate culture of the business or with fellow employees.[2] There has been some difference of opinion in the past about whether incompatibility is an operational requirements or an incapacity issue. The prevailing view is that incompatibility is a species of incapacity because it impacts on work performance. If an employee is unable to maintain an appropriate standard of relationship with his or her peers, subordinates and superiors, as reasonably required by the employer, such failure or inability may constitute a substantively fair reason for dismissal. Procedural fairness in incompatibility cases requires the employer to inform the employee of the conduct allegedly causing the disharmony, to identify the relationship affected by it and to propose remedial action to remove the incompatibility. The employee should be given a reasonable opportunity to consider the allegations and proposed action, to reply thereto and if appropriate to remove the cause for disharmony. The employer must then establish whether the employee is responsible for or has contributed substantially to irresolvable disharmony to the extent that the relationship of trust and confidence can no longer be maintained.[3]
JR2211/12
Wessels v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2211/12) [2019] ZALCJHB 361 (19 December 2019)
South African Police Service v Magwaxaza and Others
where it was held that the true enquiry had to be about determining, in a manner which was not unduly formalistic, whether the employees dismissal was fair, taking into account the allegations made against the employee and the standard of conduct required of him or her.
Zuma v Democratic Alliance [2014] 4 All SA 35 (SCA) at para 35; Kalil NO v Manguang Metro Municipality 2014 (5) SA 123 (SCA), para 30
[31] In conclusion, it needs to the restated that one of the fundamental principles prosecutors are held to is to operate with transparency and accountability. Furthermore, where, as was in this case, the legality of the actions taken by prosecutors was at stake, it was crucial for the applicant to neither be coy nor to play fast and loose with the truth, and to take the Court into her confidence, and fully explain the facts and circumstances in relation to the recreated affidavit, so that an informed decision could be taken by the Magistrate in the interests of administration of justice[11]. The applicant failed miserably on this score.
JR30/17
Edcon Limited v Cantamessa and Others (JR30/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 273; (2020) 41 ILJ 195 (LC); [2020] 2 BLLR 186 (LC) (11 October 2019)
"listening to these fucking stupid monkeys running our country"
[21] The rights as mentioned above do not however extend, inter alia, to advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. Ms Cantamessa accordingly enjoyed the freedom of expression which included freedom of the press and other media as well as freedom to receive or impart information and ideas, provided her posting did not extend to advocating hatred based on race which constitutes incitement to cause harm. She enjoyed the freedom to criticise government of the day where she felt it erred in its administrative manoeuvring. She however did not have the right to resort to racial slurs to vent her anger. Her conduct amounted to advocating hatred based on race which constitutes incitement to racial disharmony at the workplace and in the general public. Her misconduct was serious in nature, was caused by a senior personnel of Edon who had even previously been a manager and it had the potential of seriously harming Edcons business. The derogatory terms used manifested a deep-rooted racism which has no place in a democratic society as said in Custance v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others.[16] The more than 20 years of experience Ms Cantamessa had with a clean record were overweighed by the aggravating factors. Dismissal was an appropriate sanction, in the circumstances. There is nothing problematic in the treatment of co-perpetrators differently, depending, for instance, on the extent of their participation to such misconduct, as Edcon did in the present matter. The applicability of the parity principle is not to the exclusion of prevailing different circumstances of the offending employees.
JR1775/17
Thebe Investment Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Moni N.O and Others (JR1775/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 245 (20 September 2019)
[41] In Theewaterskloof Municipality v SALGBC and Others,[(2010) 31 ILJ 2475 (LC) at para 37.] quoted with approval by the LAC in Sylvania Metals (Pty) Ltd v Mello N.O. and Others,[(JA83/2015) [2016] ZALAC 52 (22 November 2016) at para 27. Unreported.]
where this Court recognised that the general principle is whether the conduct of the employee is incompatible with the trust and confidence necessary for the continuation of the employment relationship; and that where an employee has been afforded an opportunity to correct his or her behaviour and nevertheless persists in taking a confrontational course there can be very little room for the notion of corrective discipline.
JR158/17
Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v Mcwade and Others (JR158/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 274; (2020) 41 ILJ 208 (LC); [2020] 2 BLLR 199 (LC) (18 September 2019)
Mr. van As on the employees behalf, that the settlement agreement had the consequence that the employee had no contractual duty to disclose the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment with Cargo Carriers, since he voluntarily resigned and was never found guilty of any misconduct. In essence, the employees case was that he had nothing to disclose, and that it was never proven that anything he did disclose was false. I have some difficulty with this approach, based as it is on the contractual principles of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by silence or omission. We are not dealing with a contractual dispute the issue in the present instance is ultimately one of ethics. For this reason, cases such as Absa Bank Ltd v Fouche 2003 (1) SA 176 (SCA), (which concerned the relationship of a banker and client) are useful to the extent that they fix the test for the lawfulness of a non-contractual non-disclosure as one premised on what would be mutually recognised by honest men in the circumstances (see paragraph 5 of the judgment). As Lagrange J put it in Galetsitoe [2017] 7 BLLR 690 (LC), it is not unreasonable to infer that a person applying for a senior position should realise that the nature of his or her relationship with a former employer is a material consideration for a prospective new employer and could affect his or her employment prospects (at paragraph 11).
JR1235/16
POPCRU obo Makhetle v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR1235/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 244; (2020) 41 ILJ 265 (LC) (18 September 2019)
when a suspect denies possession, he cannot offer an explanation for possession as an alternative defence once possession is successfully proven.
Section 36: Any person who is found in possession of any goods, other than stock or produce as defined in section one of the Stock Theft Act, 1959 (Act 57 of 1959), in regard to which there is reasonable suspicion that they have been stolen and is unable to give a satisfactory account of such possession, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the penalties which may be imposed on a conviction of theft.
(1) (a) Any person who in any manner, otherwise than at a public sale, acquires or receives into his or her possession from any other person stolen goods, other than stock or produce as defined in section 1 of the Stock Theft Act, 1959, without having reasonable cause for believing at the time of such acquisition or receipt that such goods are the property of the person from whom he or she receives them or that such person has been duly authorised by the owner thereof to deal with or dispose of them, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the penalties which may be imposed on a conviction of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen except insofar as the imposition of any such penalty may be compulsory.
37 Absence of a reasonable cause for believing goods properly acquired
JR2454/17
Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Chakane NO and Others (JR2454/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 156 (19 June 2019)
Gold Fields Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others [2007] ZALC 66; [2014] 1 BLLR 20 (LAC); (2014) 35 ILJ 943 (LAC) at para 25.
In order to find that an employee is guilty of poor performance and consider dismissal as an appropriate sanction for such conduct, the employer is required to prove that the employee did not meet existing and known performance standards; that the failure to meet the expected standard of performance is serious; and that the employee was given sufficient training, guidance, support, time or counselling to improve his or her performance but could not perform in terms of the expected standards. Furthermore, the employer should be able to demonstrate that the failure to meet the standard of performance required is due to the employees inability to do so and not due to factors that are outside the employees control. (Emphasis added)
The respondent employees had genuine concerns that were outside their control and could have been managed with the assistance from the applicant. Clearly, the commissioner correctly found that the applicant failed to explore alternative measures short of dismissal, like training. It follows that the applicant failed to show that the dismissal of the respondent employees was an appropriate sanction.
JR2158/17
Sekgotho and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2158/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 138 (12 June 2019)
Transnet Freight Rail v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 1766 (LC) at para 38.
the Labour Court further concluded that the presence of a valid final written warning at the time of the commission of the same or similar form of misconduct should be properly interpreted as aggravating in nature, and that the principles of progressive discipline required such a re-offending employee usually to be considered irredeemable.
JR725/17
Medi Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Ntsoane N.O and Others (JR725/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 107 (22 May 2019)
1. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an order that De Wet be compensated for the two remaining months in the contract of employment, that is, June and July 2016; and
SACCAWU and Others v Irvin & Johnson [1999] 8 BLLR 741 (LAC).
. In my view too great an emphasis is quite frequently sought to be placed on to the principle of disciplinary consistency, also called the parity principle. (as to which see e.g. Grogan, Workplace Law, fourth ed. p.145 and Le Roux & Van Niekerk, The South African Law of Unfair Dismissal, p.110). There is really no separate principle involved. Consistency is simply an element of disciplinary fairness (The Dismissal of Strikers, MSM Brassey (1990) 11 ILJ 213 at 229). Every employee must be measured by the same standards (Reckitt & Colman (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Chemical Workers Industrial Union & Others (1991) 12 ILJ 806 (LAC) at 813 HI). Discipline must not be capricious. It is really the perception of bias inherent in selective discipline which makes it unfair. Where, however, one is faced with a large number of offending employees, the best that one can hope for is reasonable consistency. Some inconsistency is the price to be paid for flexibility, which requires the exercise of a discretion in each individual case. If a chairperson conscientiously and honestly, but incorrectly, exercises his or her discretion in a particular case in a particular way, it would not mean that there was unfairness towards the other employees. It would mean no more than that his or her assessment of the gravity of the page 21 of 25 disciplinary offence was wrong. It cannot be fair that other employees profit from that kind of wrong decision. In a case of a plurality of dismissals, a wrong decision can only be unfair if it is capricious, or induced by improper motives or, worse, by a discriminating management policy. (As was the case in Henred Fruehauf Trailers v National Union of Metalworkers of SA & Others, (1992) 13 ILJ 593 (LAC) at 599 H 601B; National Union of Mineworkers v Henred Fruehauf Trailers (Pty) Ltd, 1994 15 ILJ 1257 (A) at 1264). Even then I dare say that it might not be so unfair as to undo the outcome of other disciplinary enquiries. If, for example, one member of a group of employees who committed a serious offence against the employer is, for improper motives, not dismissed, it would not, in my view, necessarily mean that the other miscreants should escape. Fairness is a value judgment. It might or might not in the circumstances be fair to reinstate the other offenders. The point is that consistency is not a rule unto itself.[2]
[9] The position of the third respondent conspicuously carries distinguishable features as compared to that of Msindo and Ngobese. What is critical around the concept of inconsistency is that it is unfair that like and like are not treated alike[3]. Although the two were dismissed for the same misconduct as the third respondent, it remains undisputed that the third respondent did not appeal the dismissal sanction.
JR1359/1
Nature's Garden (Pty) Ltd v Matumba N.O and Others (JR1359/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 118 (17 May 2019)
[16] ... Proper consideration of the mitigating factors would have most likely revealed that the third respondent, to a certain extent, was found sleeping during the time set aside for regaining body heat in the canteen. Secondly, that the third respondent was not feeling well and Shibiri was aware of this. In the presence of mitigation factors which the disciplinary chairperson did not make any effort to consider, together with the totality of facts placed before the second respondent, his decision in the award cannot be found to be unreasonable.
JR1834/17
Njikelana v Kruger N.O and Others (JR1834/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 88; (2019) 40 ILJ 2380 (LC) (7 May 2019)
[15] The commissioner further found that the applicant failed to prove that, despite the fact that she did not disclose her criminal record, she had a reasonable expectation for the renewal of her fixed term contract or permanent appointment. As a result, the commissioner dismissed the applicants claim.
Independent Municipal And Allied Trade Union and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others [2014] 6 BLLR 545 (LAC) at para 34.
When assessing whether an expectation is reasonable all the surrounding facts and circumstances should be considered including the terms of the contract of employment, promises made by the employer regardless of contractual terms which gainsay what the employer promised and the general conduct of the parties.
[28] The commissioner correctly found on the evidence before him that it was difficult to comprehend how it could be expected of the third respondent to renew or appoint the applicant given that she did not only fail to disclose her criminal record, but also denied its existence.
JR2637/16
Sibanda v Pretorrius N.O and Others (JR2637/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 84 (4 April 2019)
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 1511 (LAC)
"It is clear from this finding that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the refusal to carry out an instruction is not the only basis upon which to found a charge of insubordination. The offence of insubordination in the workplace has, in this regard, been described by our courts as a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction or where the conduct of an employee poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to the employer's authority. Whereas in some cases defiance of an instruction may indicate a challenge to the authority of the employer, this is not so in every case. Insubordination may also be found to be present where disrespectful conduct poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to or defiance of the employer's authority, even where there is no indication of the giving of an instruction or defiance of an instruction. It is, therefore, not essential for an instruction to be given or disobeyed to found a challenge to the employer's authority.[14]
CCAWUSA and Another v Wooltru Ltd t/a Woolworths (Randburg) (1989) 10 ILJ 311 (IC).
In characterising the first respondent's conduct as 'insolence', the Labour Court relied upon the decision of Wooltru, which emphasises the importance of distinguishing insubordination from insolence simply because they are different offences. Wooltru equates the offence of insolence with conduct which is offensive, disrespectful, impudent, cheeky, rude (disrespectful in speech or behaviour), insulting or contemptuous, and insubordination with 'resistance to or defiance of authority; disobedience, and refusal to obey an order of a superior'. Wooltru makes it clear that, although an employee can be both insolent and insubordinate at the same time, he or she can be insolent without necessarily being insubordinate.
"As demonstrated, there is a fine line between insubordination and insolence, and insolence may very well become insubordination where there is an outright challenge to the employer's authority. However acts of mere insolence and insubordination do not justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilful. A failure of an employee to comply with a reasonable and lawful instruction of an employer or an employee's challenge to, or defiance of the authority of the employer may justify a dismissal, provided that it is wilful (deliberate) and serious. Likewise, insolent or disrespectful conduct towards an employer will only justify dismissal if it is wilful and serious. The sanction of dismissal should be reserved for instances of gross insolence and gross insubordination as respect and obedience are implied duties of an employee under contract law, and any repudiation thereof will constitute a fundamental and calculated breach by the employee to obey and respect the employer's lawful authority over him or her."[16]
[44] Therefore Palluci is distinguishable on the facts from the instant case in that apart from the lack of provocation, in the instant matter, the applicant's conduct as recorded above was found to have amounted to a clear repudiation of Lomax's authority
[27] The Court continued:
LAC had an opportunity to address the issue of insubordination versus insolence. The court per Kathree-Setiloane AJA stated the following:
JR1163/16
Kock v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1163/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 41; (2019) 40 ILJ 1625 (LC); [2019] 7 BLLR 703 (LC) (5 March 2019)
Misconduct final written warning for directly related offence consequences considered dismissal based on final written warning fair
[38] ... The final written warning was current and binding at the time of the disciplinary proceedings that led to the applicants dismissal. And finally, the final written warning was never challenged, either by way of an internal process, or by way of an unfair labour practice referral to the CCMA.
[40] Therefore, the clear difference in the nature of the dispute, where it comes to an unfair dismissal dispute and an unfair labour practice dispute, has a consequence. This consequence is that each has its own distinct dispute resolution process.[17] It follows that an unfair dismissal dispute must be pursued as such, and an unfair labour practice dispute must also be pursued as such. It cannot be legitimately contended that when an unfair dismissal dispute is pursued by way of a referral to the CCMA, it would also by implication include a challenge of an earlier final written warning, even if that final written warning may have a bearing on the dismissal. The final written warning must be specifically challenged as an unfair labour practice. This must be done by a proper referral to conciliation served on the employer, followed an unsuccessful conciliation at the CCMA.
National Union of Metalworkers of SA v Intervalve (Pty) Ltd and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 363 (CC) at para 47. See also Mphahlele v Ephraim Mogale Municipality (2018) 39 ILJ 879 (LC) at para 8.
In determining the objectives of s 191, none of its provisions can be ignored. They must all be taken into account. That includes the requirement in s 191(3) that the employee must satisfy the council that a copy of the referral has been served 'on the employer'. The general purpose of s 191 provides the background against which the specific purpose of s 191(3) must be understood. The subsection ensures that the employer party to a dismissal or unfair labour practice dispute is informed of the referral. The obvious objective is to enable the employer to participate in the conciliation proceedings, and, if they fail, to gird itself for the conflict that may follow.
Subroyen v Telkom (SA) Ltd (2001) 22 ILJ 2509 (CCMA) at 2521C-D.
The law in respect of the right of an employee to challenge prior warnings on the basis that these warnings are used in assessing a proper and fitting sanction is clear. An employee may raise the question of the fairness of these previous warnings at a subsequent tribunal hearing only if he or she challenged the fairness of these warnings at the time
[45] It is not unusual that an employee receives a final written warning, which is then challenged to the CCMA, and that employee is subsequently dismissed, which dismissal is also pursued to the CCMA. As a matter of practice, these two separate disputes may well be consolidated at arbitration stage, especially where the final written warning has a direct impact on the later dismissal. But the fact remains that there is a distinct and separate referral of the final written warning as an unfair labour practice, which is always required.
[49] The only enquiry an arbitrator when dealing with an unfair dismissal dispute is competent to make, where it comes to a pre-existing unchallenged final written warning, is limited to determining whether the final written warning was indeed issued to the employee, the employee was aware of it, whether it concerns related misconduct to that which the employee was dismissed for, and finally if it is still binding. For example, if the evidence shows that the employee was never issued with the final written warning, then it can hardly be said that the final written warning can be taken into account as the last chance being afforded to the employee to remedy his or her behaviour.[27] Another example where the final written warning may not lead to dismissal is where the warning had expired by the time the further misconduct had taken place.[28] Evidence in this respect thus does not serve to contradict the validity or fairness of the final written warning. It serves, in short, to decide if the employee is actually on a last chance because of it.
I accept that the purpose of a warning is to impress upon the employee the seriousness of his actions as well as the possible future consequences which might ensue if he misbehaves again, namely that a repetition of misconduct could lead to his dismissal.
And in Gcwensha v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others[(2006) 27 ILJ 927 (LAC) at para 32] the Court held:
Usually, the presence of a valid final written warning at the time of the commission of the same or similar form of misconduct should be properly interpreted as aggravating in nature. The principles of progressive discipline require such a re-offending employee usually to be considered irredeemable. . I accept that the purpose of a warning is to impress upon the employee the seriousness of his actions as well as the possible future consequences which might ensue if he misbehaves again, namely that a repetition of misconduct could lead to his dismissal.
[60] The Court in Transnet Freight Rail v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others[(2011) 32 ILJ 1766 (LC) at para 42 43. See also Builders Trade Depot v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 1154 (LC) at paras 45 46] specifically dealt with the very issue of the consequences of a final written warning, and said:
final written warning for insubordination final written warning never challenged warning must stand and cannot be challenged in later unfair dismissal proceedings
JR1657/14
Netswera v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1657/14) [2019] ZALCJHB 64 (2 March 2019)
[24] The Second Respondent was to determine who started the assault and whether there was provocation.[11] In so doing, I find that he considered the evidence before him in totality[12] when he found that the Applicant assaulted Mr Raseruthe in Mr Metherells office and that he was not provoked. The evidence before him was that Mr Raseruthe did not assault the Applicant in Mr Metherells office.
J34/2017
Nyamane v MEC: Free State Department of Health (J34/2017) [2018] ZALCJHB 455; [2019] 12 BLLR 1371 (LC) (31 August 2018)
(b) If such an officer who is deemed to have been so discharged, reports for duty at any time after the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph (a), the relevant executing authority may, on good cause shown and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, approve the reinstatement of that officer in the public service in his or her former or any other post or position, and in such a case the period of his or her absence from official duty shall be deemed to be absence on vacation leave without pay or leave on such other conditions as the said authority may determine.
[20] In a situation where a court assesses good cause it is generally expected for a party to show good cause by (a) giving a reasonable explanation of his default; (b) showing that he or she is bona fide in his or her quest; (c) he or she has a bona fide claim or defence and some prospects of success. I am of a view that when an executing authority assesses good cause he or she must properly consider all the relevant circumstances. Should it be shown that he or she failed to consider all the relevant circumstances, then he or she would have failed to meet the statutory obligation and thus his or her decision thereafter would be incapacitated by the constitutional principle of legality or rationality.
[30] It is in this context that the requirement of good cause referred to in s 14 (2) must be read. This would ordinarily mean that unless the employer, having regard to the full conspectus of relevant facts and circumstances, is satisfied that continued employment relationship has been rendered intolerable by the employees conduct, the employer should as a general rule approve the reinstatement of the employee.
De Villiers v Head of Department: Education, Western Cape, found persuasion in the reasoning of Davis J and Allie J in the matter of De Villiers v Minister of Education Western Cape Province and another
[30] It is in this context that the requirement of good cause referred to in s 14 (2) must be read. This would ordinarily mean that unless the employer, having regard to the full conspectus of relevant facts and circumstances, is satisfied that continued employment relationship has been rendered intolerable by the employees conduct, the employer should as a general rule approve the reinstatement of the employee....[22] My brothers reading of the high court judgment he relied on is that it is not required that an employee, who bears the onus to show good cause, to show that the refusal to reinstate would amount to an unfair dismissal. It does seem to me that Davis J and Allie J also found persuasion in other High Court judgments, which suggested that a deemed discharge should be treated the same way as dismissal for misconduct, thus Schedule 8 of the LRA must be applied.
JR2049/15
Jijana v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2049/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 268 (28 August 2018)
12.6 A significant factor with the applicants evidence was that despite being found guilty of breaching the policy, she did not deem her conduct as being dishonest. Any HR practitioner involved in recruitment processes should know, without being asked or without even any specific rules in place, that a recusal from the process would be appropriate where there is a clear , let alone a potential conflict of interest.
JR1288/12
Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd Matla Coal v NUM obo Stigling and Others (JR1288/12) [2018] ZALCJHB 260 (15 August 2018)
[20] It is evident that the arbitrator failed to appreciate the nature and importance of the rule that the employees did not comply with; the potential consequences of nonadherence to the rule; the fact that the employees were well aware of the rule and had elected not to comply with it, the nature of the employees duties as well as the fact that the employees did not show any contrition but instead defended their conduct by claiming that they did not receive practical training.
JR1269/2014
Nchaupa v Tshayana NO and Others (JR1269/2014) [2018] ZALCJHB 250 (12 July 2018)
Impact Ltd (Mondi Packaging SA (Pty) Ltd) v National Bargaining Council for the Wood and Paper Sector and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 2266 (LC) at para 21
held that the real issue underlying substantive fairness in dismissals related to desertion is whether the employee had advanced satisfactory justification for his or her extended unauthorised absence. Thus, the element of intention becomes a secondary issue.
[29]...On the contrary, it appears that the hearing and the decision on sanction were predetermined, thus making the dismissal procedurally unfair.
PA10/2017
South African Police Service v Magwaxaza and Others (PA10/2017) [2019] ZALAC 66; [2020] 2 BLLR 151 (LAC); (2020) 41 ILJ 408 (LAC) (5 November 2019)
[28] At his disciplinary hearing the employee, who admitted fatally wounding the deceased, maintained that he was acting in self-defence after perceiving that the deceased, who, on his version, had confronted and reminded him of what had happened at the ceremony earlier, was about to stab him with an object which he, subsequently, thought was a knife. According to the employee he also feared being attacked by others at that stage, even though he only saw the deceased.
the sanction of dismissal was appropriate and fair.
JA4/18
EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA4/18) [2019] ZALAC 57; (2019) 40 ILJ 2477 (LAC); [2019] 12 BLLR 1304 (LAC) (15 August 2019)
Dismissal was an appropriate sanction in the circumstances.
[20] The evidence establishes that Danney was at least negligent. He wrongfully distributed valuable intellectual property of one of the appellants main clients to an acquaintance. Before sending the second e-mail, he downloaded a volume licence key. As the team leader working daily with software applications, he was required to observe a high standard of care in dealing with the intellectual property under his control. His conduct could have caused reputational harm to the appellant in that Wesbank might reasonably have concluded that its intellectual property was not in safe hands.
[19] The requirements for a dismissal based on negligence are that the employee failed to exercise the standard of care that can reasonably be expected of him through conduct that caused loss or potential loss to the employer.
DA18/2017
Pailprint (Pty) Ltd v Lyster N.O and Others (DA18/2017) [2019] ZALAC 43; (2019) 40 ILJ 2047 (LAC); [2019] 10 BLLR 1139 (LAC) (13 June 2019)
Within the context of the nature of the strike violence committed, the seriousness of this breach was overlooked by the arbitrator.
[19] an employment relationship by its nature obliges an employee to act honestly, in good faith and to protect the interests of the employer. The high premium placed on honesty in the workplace has led our courts repeatedly to find that the presence of dishonesty makes the restoration of trust, which is at the core of the employment relationship, unlikely. Dismissal for dishonest conduct has been found to be fair where continued employment is intolerable and dismissal is a sensible operational response to risk management. (Emphasis added)
JR180/2017
Travalgar Property Management v Bakshi and Others (JR180/2017) [2019] ZALCJHB 3 (11 January 2019)
[44] In summary: the arbitrator considered the fact that the employee had leave credits but was prepared to take unpaid leave, that he went on leave against the Applicants orders and that his absence disrupted the Applicants operations. On the other hand, the employees absence was not inordinate, he had to take his ailing father to India, the disruption of the Applicants operations had to be juxtaposed with the employees personal circumstances and in view of the employees unfortunate and unplanned personal circumstances, the instruction not to go on leave was unreasonable and callous, wherefore dismissal was not an appropriate sanction as a written or final written warning would have sufficed.
JR 1620/15
Moeketsi v Transnet Bargaining Council (JR 1620/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 398 (5 December 2018)
LAC in Impala Platinum Ltd v Jansen and Others,[(2017) 38 ILJ 896 (LAC) at para 19] referring to G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero NO and Others with approval
JS427/15
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa obo Its Members in the employ of the Respondent v Transnet SOC Ltd (JS427/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 352; [2019] 2 BLLR 172 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 583 (LC) (31 October 2018)
[30] To the extent that s 5 (2)(c)(vi) proscribes an employer from prejudicing an employee on account of the exercise of any rights conferred by the LRA, the wearing of a union t-shirt constitutes a lawful activity under the LRA. This is particularly so in so far as the wearing of a t-shirt is an associative act and s 4 specifically protects an employees right to freedom of association by joining trade unions and participating in its lawful activities. On this basis, the union t-shirt ban is also an infringement of s 5 (2) (c) (vi) and is invalid.
The legal position now is that is that it must be implied from the gravity of the misconduct that the trust relationship had broken down
Edcon Limited v Pillemer NO and others [2010] 1 BLLR 1 (SCA).
Impala Platinum Ltd v Jansen [2017] 4 BLLR 325; (2017) ILJ 896 (LAC)
JR1345/14
Supreme Poultry (Pty) Ltd v Mokgethi and Others (JR1345/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 325 (13 September 2018)
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others [2015] 5 BLLR 484 (LAC) ; (2015) 36 ILJ 1511 (LAC)
[19] It is clear from this finding that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the refusal to carry out an instruction is not the only basis upon which to found a charge of insubordination. The offence of insubordination in the workplace has, in this regard, been described by our courts as a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction or where the conduct of an employee poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to the employers authority. Whereas in some cases defiance of an instruction may indicate a challenge to the authority of the employer, this is not so in every case. Insubordination may also be found to be present where disrespectful conduct poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to, or defiance of the employer's authority, even where there is no indication of the giving of an instruction or defiance of an instruction. It is, therefore, not essential for an instruction to be given or disobeyed to found a challenge to the employer's authority. (My emphasis)
[18] This Court in Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others, discussed the fine line between insubordination and insolence, with the latter being conduct that is offensive, disrespectful in speech or behaviour, impudent, cheeky, rude, insulting or contemptuous. While the Court noted that insolence may become insubordination where there is an outright challenge to the employers authority, acts of mere insolence and insubordination do not justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilful. The sanction of dismissal is reserved for instances of gross insolence and gross insubordination or the wilful flouting of the instructions of the employer. (footnotes and citations omitted)
can manifest itself in the refusal to obey a reasonable and lawful command or in the challenge (or resistance) to or defiance of (see especially The Shorter Oxford Dictionary above) the authority of the employer. It is of course required that insubordination must be deliberate (wilful) and serious (above). This is not to say contemptuousness of authority (insolence, impudence, cheekiness, disrespect or rudeness) cannot constitute a ground of dismissal (provided, of course, that it is wilful and serious). One should, however, always distinguish between insubordination on the one hand and insolence on the other hand because they are definitely not the same kind of offence. (footnotes omitted)
[22] As demonstrated, there is a fine line between insubordination and insolence, and insolence may very well become insubordination where there is an outright challenge to the employers authority. However acts of mere insolence and insubordination do not justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilful. A failure of an employee to comply with a reasonable and lawful instruction of an employer or an employees challenge to, or defiance of the authority of the employer may justify a dismissal, provided that it is wilful (deliberate) and serious. Likewise, insolent or disrespectful conduct towards an employer will only justify dismissal if it is wilful and serious. The sanction of dismissal should be reserved for instances of gross insolence and gross insubordination as respect and obedience are implied duties of an employee under contract law, and any repudiation thereof will constitute a fundamental and calculated breach by the employee to obey and respect the employers lawful authority over him or her. Thus, unless the insolence or insubordination is of a particularly gross nature, an employer must issue a prior warning before having recourse to the final act of dismissal.(footnotes omitted)
[20] ...Wooltru, which emphasises the importance of distinguishing insubordination from insolence simply because they are different offences. Wooltru equates the offence of insolence with conduct which is offensive, disrespectful, impudent, cheeky, rude (disrespectful in speech or behaviour), insulting or contemptuous, and insubordination with resistance to or defiance of authority; disobedience, and refusal to obey an order of a superior. Wooltru makes it clear that although an employee can be both insolent and insubordinate at the same time, he or she can be insolent without necessarily being insubordinate. Notably, the Court in Wooltru held that a mere disrespect for the employer (or insolence, impudence, cheekiness or rudeness) cannot, on its own, constitute insubordination which by its very nature requires disobedience or an outright challenge to authority. Insubordination it observed:
[17] Insubordination in the workplace context generally refers to the disregard of an employers authority or lawful and reasonable instructions. It occurs when an employee refuses to accept the authority of a person in a position of authority over him or her and, as such, is misconduct because it assumes a calculated breach by the employee of the obligation to adhere to and comply with the employers lawful authority. It includes a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to adhere to a lawful and reasonable instruction of the employer, as well as conduct which poses a deliberate and serious challenge to the employers authority even where an instruction has not been given.
J440/17
Delmas Coal (Pty) Limited v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J440/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 233 (26 June 2018)
close to the mine shortly after the other vehicle was seen leaving the mine, that the third respondent and Blessing were responsible for the theft of the cables, that it is possible to enter and exit the mine without an access card even though this was not permitted by the mine, that the third respondent ought to have been on a fatigue shift and not anywhere near the mine at the time. An holistic evaluation of all of the evidence points only toward the undeniable conclusion that the third respondent was guilty of the misconduct with which he was charged.
JR1556/17
Prestige Cosmetics Group (Pty) Ltd v Ceda NO and Others (JR1556/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 230 (20 June 2018)
The applicants witness led extensive evidence on the performance review sessions that were conducted with the third and fourth respondents and the nature and content of those sessions. This evidence was not disputed by the third and fourth respondents. Despite that, the arbitrator found that the third and fourth respondents had been unfairly dismissed because no hearing held. This finding is fundamentally inconsistent with the undisputed evidence and with the principle that in cases of alleged poor performance, a disciplinary-type hearing is not appropriate. Further, the applicant led extensive evidence, which was also undisputed, on the performance targets set for the third and fourth respondents and their failure to meet those targets. Evidence was also led of the extensive training on the applicants product range that was afforded to the third and fourth respondents. The third and fourth respondents were subjected to at least three performance review sessions in order to determine the reasons for their failure to meet the required targets. Guidance and counselling were offered but despite these efforts, the targets were not met.
JR2578/14
WBHO Civil Construction (Pty) Ltd v Hlatshwayo N.O. and Others (JR2578/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 176 (10 May 2018)
Although the misconduct of the individual respondents was serious, there are material mitigating factors in their favour. To begin with, as reasonably (not necessarily correctly) found by the commissioner: (i) it was inappropriate for the shift cancelling instruction to have been issued to the shop steward and it was bound to miscarry; (ii) the rationale for the instruction was without merit and the decision to cancel the shift was mala fide; and (iii) confusion reigned supreme on the Saturday. Each of these factors is compelling.
JR1205/15
Harmony Goldmine Company Limited v Raffee N.O. and Others (JR1205/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 169; (2018) 39 ILJ 2017 (LC) (8 May 2018)
To my mind, the compensation was offered within the context of negotiations, a normal turn of events in terms of the African norms and tradition of conflict resolution as confirmed by the expert witnesses.
JR1436/15
National Education Health and Allied Workers Union obo Mogorosi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1436/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 149 (18 April 2018)
what constitutes gross negligence
Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Province and Another v Seopela N.O and Others (JR 226 / 2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 22 (4 February 2015) at para 40
Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet v Owners of the MV Stella Tingas and Another 2003 (2) SA 473 (SCA) at para 7
. it is not consciousness of risk-taking that distinguishes gross negligence from ordinary negligence. . If consciously taking a risk is reasonable there will be no negligence at all. If a person foresees the risk of harm but acts, or fails to act, in the unreasonable belief that he or she will be able to avoid the danger or that for some other reason it will not eventuate, the conduct in question may amount to ordinary negligence or it may amount to gross negligence (or recklessness in the wide sense) depending on the circumstances. . even in the absence of conscious risk-taking, conduct may depart so radically from the standard of the reasonable person as to amount to gross negligence . It follows that whether there is conscious risk-taking or not, it is necessary in each case to determine whether the deviation from what is reasonable is so marked as to justify it being condemned as gross . Dicta in modern judgments, although sometimes more appropriate in respect of dolus eventualis, similarly reflect the extreme nature of the negligence required to constitute gross negligence. Some examples are: 'no consideration whatever to the consequences of his acts' (Central South African Railways v Adlington & Co 1906 TS 964 at 973); 'a total disregard of duty' (Rosenthal v Marks 1944 TPD 172 at 180); 'nalatigheid van 'n baie ernstige aard' or ''n besondere ho graad van nalatigheid' (S v Smith en Andere 1973 (3) SA 217 (T) at 219A - B); 'ordinary negligence of an aggravated form which falls short of wilfulness' (Bickle v Joint Ministers of Law and Order 1980 (2) SA 764 (R) at 770C); 'an entire failure to give consideration to the consequences of one's actions' (S v Dhlamini 1988 (2) SA 302 (A) at 308D). It follows, I think, that to qualify as gross negligence the conduct in question, although falling short of dolus eventualis, must involve a departure from the standard of the reasonable person to such an extent that it may properly be categorised as extreme; it must demonstrate, where there is found to be conscious risk-taking, a complete obtuseness of mind or, where there is no conscious risk-taking, a total failure to take care.
JA40/17
Solidarity and Another v Armaments Corporation of South Africa (Sco) Ltd and Others (JA40/17) [2018] ZALAC 39 (27 November 2018)
It follows that, at the time of issuing the letter of termination, the incapacity had not yet been determined to be of a permanent nature that warranted Mr Jouberts dismissal.
Workplace Law John Grogan- 12th Ed, 2017, ch 14-p 287.
incapacity need not arise from illness or injury. Employees may be dismissed for incapacity arising from any condition that prevents them from performing their work. In other words, incapacity may give rise to a species of impossibility of performance.
National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Samancor Ltd (Tubatse Ferrochrome) and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 1618 (SCA) at 1623 para 12.
While ordinary principles of contract permit a contracting party to terminate the contract if the other party becomes unable to perform, that is not the end of the matter in the case of employment. The question that still remains in such cases is whether it was fair in the circumstances for the employer to exercise that election. In making that assessment the fact that the employee is not at fault is clearly a consideration that might and should properly be brought to account.
As correctly found by the Court a quo Mr Jouberts inability to perform his services, due to the legal impediment imposed by s37 of the Defence Act and Armscors corresponding employment policies, falls squarely within the ambit of a dismissal based on capacity. However, this is not the end of the enquiry...The difficulty with this case is that PSRB never reviewed the decision of the Intelligence Division which refused Mr Joubert all grades of security clearance and, worse, the reason(s) for the refusal of all the grades of security clearance remains unexplained...In my view, if the final determination has not been made, then the substantive reason for the dismissal under section 37(2) has not been determined
JA32/2017
TMT Services and Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA32/2017) [2018] ZALAC 36 (17 October 2018)
Old LAC decision in Acrylic Products (Pty) Ltd v CWIU and Another [1997] 4 BLLR 370 (LAC).
[19] Therefore, defiance of authority can be proven by a single act of defiance.
Msunduzi Municipality v Hoskins (2017) 38 ILJ 582 (LAC) where a managerial employee defied an instruction to cease advising and representing workers in disciplinary matters and in response to such instructions dared his superiors to try their luck enforcing the instruction.
There is no necessity for high drama and physical posturing to be present.
Scoble, Law of Master and Servant in South Africa, Butterworth, Durban (1956) p145.
The employer prerogative to command its subordinates is the principle that is protected by the class of misconduct labelled insubordination and addresses operational requirements of the organisation that ensure that managerial paralysis does not occur.
PA5/17
Qalinga v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PA5/17) [2018] ZALAC 32 (17 October 2018)
[18] he control of the employer over the stock is compromised by such conduct. On the facts adduced, it is incorrect to suggest that the company had unhindered access to the stock simply because it was still on company premises. It was established that there was no business reason for the stock, on that scale, to be in the store, moreover, concealed, and as such out of reach.
JA59/2017
Malapalane v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Goedevonden Colliery) and Others (JA59/2017) [2018] ZALAC 22; (2018) 39 ILJ 2467 (LAC) (15 August 2018)
[23] By the appellants own admission he was well experienced and a perfect person for the job. He worked in laboratories in different capacities since 2006. The system of graduated discipline, which Ms Sithole says she invoked in the quest to assist him to produce the reproducibility target set, came to naught. All that he ought to have done was to inform Ms Sithole of the correct test results of his laboratory so that the coal produced could be directed to a customer prepared to accept the coal of that quality. Instead, he opted to deceitfully provide incorrect information on the results. The undisputed evidence, that his misconduct resulted in approximately R250 million loss in revenue to Glencore and concomitant reputational damage, cannot be downplayed. On the whole, I am of the view, that the sanction of dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
JA65/2017
RACEY LUCILLE ROSCHER and INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (JA65/2017) [2018] ZALAC 20; (2018) 39 ILJ 2489 (LAC) (19 July 2018)
employer contending that employee failed to disclose a negative report that warned against the funding of the film project...Her attitude reflected a lack of concern or insight about the possibility that her misrepresentations and non-disclosure had significant potential to cause IDC reputational and financial prejudice.
DA16/2016
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Nganezi and Others v Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (DA16/2016) [2018] ZALAC 19; [2018] 10 BLLR 961 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2226 (LAC); 2018 (6) SA 240 (LAC) (17 July 2018)
Chauke and Others v Lee Service Station CC t/s Leeson Motors (1998) 19 ILJ 1441 (LAC).
Several important aspects of the dicta require qualification. Important to appreciate is that no new category of misconduct was created by judicial fiat. The effect of these dicta is to elucidate the principle that an employee, bound implicitly by a duty of good faith towards the employer breaches that duty by remaining silent about knowledge possessed by the employee regarding the business interests of the employer being improperly undermined. And, uncontroversially, and on general principle, a breach of the duty of good faith can justify dismissal. Nondisclosure of knowledge relevant to misconduct committed by fellow employees is an instance of a breach of the duty of good faith. Importantly the critical point made by both FAWU and Leeson Motors is that a dismissal of an employee is derivatively justified in relation to the primary misconduct committed by unknown others, where an employee, innocent of actual perpetration of misconduct, consciously chooses not to disclose information known to that employee pertinent to the wrongdoing. (Underlining supplied)
derivative misconduct is to succinctly label a species of misconduct evidencing a breach by an employee of the duty of good faith comprising a refusal to disclose information relevant to harm being perpetrated by other persons against an employers interests. Accordingly, by reason of such omission, the culpability of the actual perpetrators of particular misconduct, is fairly attributed to them too.
[22] The notion of derivative misconduct was again addressed by Revelas AJA in Foschini Group v Maidi (Foschini)[9] esp at [47] where the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) endorsed the decision in Chauke without further comment on the concept.[10] Then in Western Platinum Refinery Ltd v Hlebela and Others (Hlebela),[11] the LAC again addressed the notion.[12] At paragraph [8], with reference to the cited passages in Chauke, it was stated that:
[35] On the same basis, the court rejected the unattested suggestion that the appellants may have declined to come forward because of intimidation or from a sense of 'collegiality' (at 1064E-F). The court concluded, in effect from the absence of evidentiary self-absolution, that it was 'probable that all the appellants were indeed present when the assault took place and either participated therein or lent their support to it' (at 1064H). (underlining supplied)
'This is pre-eminently a case in which, had one or more of the appellants had an innocent explanation, they would have tendered it, and in my view their failure to do so must be weighed in the balance against them.'
[34] In FAWU v ABI, the court held that, on an application of evidentiary principles, the failure by any of the workers concerned to give evidence, either in the workplace hearings or in the Industrial Court, justified the inference that all those present at the workplace on that day 'either participated in the assault or lent it their support' (at 1064B-C). There were other inferences compatible with the evidence. But the inference of involvement was the most likely since (at 1064E):
[33] This approach involves a derived justification, stemming from an employee's failure to offer reasonable assistance in the detection of those actually responsible for the misconduct. Though the dismissal is designed to target the perpetrators of the original misconduct, the justification is wide enough to encompass those innocent of it, but who through their silence make themselves guilty of a derivative violation of trust and confidence.
'In the field of industrial relations, it may be that policy considerations require more of an employee than that he merely remained passive in circumstances like the present, and that his failure to assist in an investigation of this sort may in itself justify disciplinary action.'
[32] This rationale was suggested, without being decided, in Food & Allied Workers Union & others v Amalgamated Beverage Industries Ltd (1994) 15 ILJ 1057 (LAC) (FAWU v ABI). There a large group of workers had assaulted a 'scab' driver, leaving him severely injured. The company was unable to prove which of those present at the workplace at the time actually perpetrated the assault. All those who had clocked in and who were thus in the vicinity of the incident when it occurred were charged with the assault. None came forward at the workplace hearings or in the Industrial Court to affirm their innocence or to volunteer any evidence about the perpetrators. Nugent J, sitting with assessors John and Satchwell, suggested at 1063B that:
[31] In the second category, two lines of justification for a fair dismissal may be postulated. The first is that a worker in the group which includes the perpetrators may be under a duty to assist management in bringing the guilty to book. Where a worker has or may reasonably be supposed to have information concerning the guilty, his or her failure to come forward with the information may itself amount to misconduct. The relationship between employer and employee is in its essentials one of trust and confidence, and, even at common law, conduct clearly inconsistent with that essential warranted termination of employment (Council for Scientific & Industrial Research v Fijen (1996) 17 ILJ 18 (A) at 26D-E). Failure to assist an employer in bringing the guilty to book violates this duty and may itself justify dismissal.
[30] The present case illustrates the second category. Management did not advance an operational rationale for the dismissal. It charged the 20 workers in the paint-shop and cleaning and polishing sections with misconduct - malicious damage to property - and concluded that they had all been guilty of it. Was this unfair?
[29] Such a case involves the dismissal of an indisputably innocent worker. It posits a justification on operational grounds, namely that action is necessary to save the life of the enterprise. That must be distinguished from the second category, where the justification advanced is not operational. It is misconduct. And no innocent workers are involved: management's rationale is that it has sufficient grounds for inferring that the whole group is responsible for or involved in the misconduct.
[28] Two different kinds of justification may be advanced for such a dismissal. In Brassey & others The New Labour Law (1987) at 93-5, the situation is posed where one of only two workers is known to be planning major and irreversible destructive action, but management is unable to pinpoint which. Brassey suggests that, if all avenues of investigation have been exhausted, the employer may be entitled to dismiss both.
[27] The case presents a difficult problem of fair employment practice. Where misconduct necessitating disciplinary action is proved, but management is unable to pinpoint the perpetrator or perpetrators, in what circumstances will it be permissible to dismiss a group of workers which incontestably includes them? (This species of misconduct is not to be conflated with criminal doctrine of common purpose which addresses the notion that persons who identify with a course of action by their acts of association with its perpetration are equally guilty of the deed perpetrated.)
Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and Others (2000) 21 ILJ 340 (LAC) at 344 paras 15-16.
[16] I hold that the first respondent's length of service in the circumstances of this case was of no relevance and could not provide, and should not have provided, any mitigation for misconduct of such a serious nature as gross dishonesty. I am not saying that there can be no sufficient mitigating factors in cases of dishonesty nor am I saying dismissal is always an appropriate sanction for misconduct involving dishonesty. In my judgment the moment dishonesty is accepted in a particular case as being of such a serious degree as to be described as gross, then dismissal is an appropriate and fair sanction.
[15]..Although a long period of service of an employee will usually be a mitigating factor where such employee is guilty of misconduct, the point must be made that there are certain acts of misconduct which are of such a serious nature that no length of service can save an employee who is guilty of them from dismissal. To my mind one such clear act of misconduct is gross dishonesty. It appears to me that the commissioner did not appreciate this fundamental point.
PA3/17
Nel v Construction Education and Training Authority and Others (PA3/17) [2018] ZALAC 16 (10 July 2018)
in a misconduct hearing one is not required to satisfy the criminal law requirements of wrongdoing- All that is required is to establish if an employee committed misconduct and the seriousness thereof.
deliberately concealed the existence of the gift card which had a credit balance due to the employer and made herself guilty of dishonest conduct.
Fraud: Fraud consists in unlawfully making, with intent to defraud, a misrepresentation which causes actual prejudice or which is potentially prejudicial to another. (S v Gardener and Another 2011 (1) SACR 570 (SCA) para 29)
However, in misconduct hearings, one is not required to satisfy the criminal law requirements of any wrongdoing. All that is required is to establish if the employee committed misconduct, whether the misconduct was one of dishonest conduct complained of or something else, and the seriousness thereof. Labels are totally irrelevant, particularly to a criminal charge that is for the criminal courts to deal with.
PA4/2017
Malamlela v South African Local Government Bargaining Council (PA4/2017) [2018] ZALAC 25; (2018) 39 ILJ 2454 (LAC) (6 June 2018)
dismissed after having been found guilty of insubordination in deliberately refusing to comply with an instruction
National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers and Others v National Lotteries Board 2014 (3) SA 544 (CC) at para 213, minority judgment per Dambuza AJ; Lynx Geosystems SA v CCMA and Others (2010) JOL 26424 (LC); Transport and General Worker Union and Another v Interstate Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd (1988) 9 ILJ 877 (IC) at 880-1.
...would be transferred to another sub-directorate...[29] Insubordination involves a persistent, wilful and serious challenge to, or defiance of the employer's authority; a calculated challenge to the employers authority, which is deliberate or intentional.
Motor Industry Staff Association & another v Silverton Spraypainters & Panelbeaters and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 1440 (LAC); and SA Municipal Workers Union and Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others [2016] 12 BLLR 1208 (LAC).
sanction of dismissal was justified when her defiance flowed from conflict with her immediate superiors, destroying the trust relationship.
NUMSA obo Mkhwanazi v Ellies Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2012) 33 ILJ 516 (BCA); Motor Industry Staff Association and Another v Silverton Spraypainters and Panelbeaters (Pty) Ltd (2013) 34 ILJ 1440 (LAC) at para 47.
An appropriate degree of mutual trust, respect and courtesy is to be shown by both employer and employee towards the other in the context of an employment relationship.
Mqhayi v Van Leer SA (Pty) Ltd 1984 (5) ILJ 179 (IC) at 182A-D.
Our courts have traditionally viewed respect and obedience as implied duties of an employee under the employment contract
National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers obo Mani and Others v National Lotteries Board 2014 (3) SA 544 (CC); 2014 (6) BCLR 663 (CC); [2014] 7 BLLR 621 (CC); (2014) 35 ILJ 1885 (CC) at para 57 (minority judgment of Froneman J).
with the outdated reliance on obedience intended to refer to the employees duty to act in good faith and adhere to the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer
JA25/2017
Nkomati Joint Venture v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JA25/2017) [2018] ZALAC 11; [2018] 8 BLLR 773 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2484 (LAC) (17 May 2018)
In either event, his conduct was dismissible.
JS 805/04
Khanyile and Others v Air Chefs (Pty) Ltd (JS 805/04) [2015] ZALCJHB 238 (4 August 2015)
Johnson & Johnson (1999) 20 ILJ 89 (LAC) at para [28]
the employer was not at fault and did all it could, from its side, to achieve consensus seeking, the purpose of the section would also have been achieved.
failed to disclose vital facts
[52] Of course, it is accepted that not every misconduct offence involving dishonesty warrants a sanction of dismissal. There are varying degrees of dishonesty and, therefore, each case is to be determined on the basis of its own facts on whether a decision to dismiss an offending employee is a reasonable one. Generally, however, a sanction of dismissal is justifiable and, indeed, warranted where dishonesty involved is of a gross nature. InToyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and others, this Court held as follows: Although a long period of service of an employee will usually be a mitigating factor where such employee is guilty of misconduct, the point must be made that there are certain acts of misconduct which are of such a serious nature that no length of service can save an employee who is guilty of them from dismissal. To my mind one such clear act of misconduct is gross dishonesty. It appears to me that the commissioner did not appreciate this fundamental point. I hold that the first respondents length of service in the circumstances of this case was of no relevance and could not provide, and should not have provided, any mitigation for misconduct of such a serious nature as gross dishonesty. I am not saying that there can be no sufficient mitigating factors in cases of dishonesty nor am I saying dismissal is always an appropriate sanction for misconduct involving dishonesty. In my judgment the moment dishonesty is accepted in a particular case as being of such a serious degree as to be described as gross, then dismissal is an appropriate and fair sanction.
[53] InDe Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd, above, the Court further pointed out that [t]he seriousness of dishonesty ie whether it can be stigmatised as gross or not depends not only, or even mainly, on the act of dishonesty itself but on the way in which it impacts on the employers business. In the present instance, considering the nature of the appellants business, there can be no doubt, in my view, that Ms Naidus dishonesty severely adversely impacted on the business.
[55] On the issue of breakdown in trust relationship, occasioned by an employees dishonest misconduct, this Court (per Davis JA) inShoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v CCMAand others, stated the following: [T]his Court has consistently followed an approach, laid out early in the jurisprudence of the Labour Court in Standard Bank SA Limited v CCMA and others [1998] 6 BLLR 622 (LC) at paragraphs 3841 where Tip AJ said: It was one of the fundamentals of the employment relationship that the employer should be able to place trust in the employee A breach of this trust in the form of conduct involving dishonesty is one that goes to the heart of the employment relationship and is destructive of it.
[42] Indeed, in accordance with the parity principle, the element of consistency on the part of an employer in its treatment of employees is an important factor to take into account in the determination process of the fairness of a dismissal. However, as I say, it is only a factor to take into account in that process. It is by no means decisive of the outcome on the determination of reasonableness and fairness of the decision to dismiss. In my view, the fact that another employee committed a similar transgression in the past and was not dismissed cannot, and should not, be taken to grant a licence to every other employee, willy-nilly, to commit serious misdemeanours, especially of a dishonest nature, towards their employer on the belief that they would not be dismissed. It is well accepted in civilised society that two wrongs can never make a right. The parity principle was never intended to promote or encourage anarchy in the workplace. As stated earlier, I reiterate, there are varying degrees of dishonesty and, therefore, each case will be treated on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
JR583/14
Government Printing Works v Mathala N.O. and Others (JR583/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 358 (31 August 2016)
he parity principle requires that there must be flexibility; various cases explored. In consistency matters, itmust be expected that there will(i)always be some inherent variances that(ii)are random,(iii)affecting different employees, and (iv) will determine different assessment and outcomes. It is certain though, that the gravity of the offence is the grandest factor causing the variances, and must always be scrutinised with greater care.
JR1810/15
Palabora Copper (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1810/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 138 (27 March 2018)
The review application regarding the substitution of the dismissal sanction for a final written warning valid for 6 months is upheld
JR2219/14
Dagane v SSSBC and Others (JR2219/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 114 (16 March 2018)
"...Well commit a genocide on them. I hate whites.
31]The Commissioner carefully considered whether it was hearsay evidence. She found that it was. She then reasonably assessed whether it was nevertheless admissible in terms of section 3(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 16 of 1988 which conferred on her a discretion to admit hearsay evidence if it is in her opinion that it was in the interest of justice to admit it. She did this by evaluating the matter in line with the factors set out in section 3(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. She took into account that the nature of the proceedings was an arbitration which implored her to deal with the substantive merits of the dispute with the minimum of legal formalities. This is in line with section 138(1) of the LRA
Dutch Reformed Church Vergesig Johannesburg Congregation and another v Sooknunan t/a Glory Divine World Ministries [2012] 3 All SA 322 ; 2012 (6) SA 201 (GSJ); H v W 2013 (5) BCLR 554 (GSJ) (at paragraphs (10) (23).
if this was the case the applicant would have distanced himself from making the remarks, which he did not do.
balance of probabilities that the applicant was the author of the offensive and racist remarks; that he had posted them; that he had breached a rule of conduct within the workplace; and that his remarks on Facebook offended the Constitution as they were discriminatory and constituted hate speech. This is a reasonable conclusion in relation to the totality of evidence that was before her.
Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town [2016] 4 All SA 723 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 485 (SCA) paras [67] [69].
A court should not be hasty to conclude that because language is angry in tone or conveys hostility it is therefore to be characterised as hate speech, even if it has overtones of race or ethnicity. The message on Mr Magidas T-shirt said unequivocally to anyone who was more than a metre or two away that they should kill all whites. The reaction to that message by people who saw it, as communicated to Mr Ganger, was that this was an incitement to violence against white people. The fact that Mr Magida sought to explain away the slogan and suggest that it said something other than what it clearly appeared to say, is itself a clear indication that he recognised its racist and hostile nature. Whether it in fact bore a tiny letter s before the word KILL is neither here nor there. The vast majority of people who saw it would not have ventured closer to ascertain whether, imperceptibly to normal eyesight, the message was something other than it appeared to be. They would have taken it at face value as a message being conveyed by the wearer that all white people should be killed. There was no context that would have served to ameliorate that message. It was advocacy of hatred based on race alone and it constituted incitement to harm whites. It was not speech protected by s 16(1) of the Constitution.
Section 16(2) therefore defines the boundaries beyond which the right to freedom of expression does not extend. In that sense, the subsection is definitional. Implicit in its provisions is an acknowledgment that certain expression does not deserve constitutional protection because, among other things, it has the potential to impinge adversely on the dignity of others and cause harm. Our Constitution is founded on the principles of dignity, equal worth and freedom, and these objectives should be given effect to.
But in guaranteeing freedom of speech the Constitution also places limits upon its exercise. Where it goes beyond a passionate expression of feelings and views and becomes the advocacy of hatred based on race or ethnicity and constituting incitement to cause harm, it oversteps those limits and loses its constitutional protection. In Islamic Unity Convention Langa CJ explained the reason for this:
freedom to speak one's mind is now an inherent quality of the type of society contemplated by the Constitution as a whole and is specifically promoted by the freedoms of conscience, expression, assembly, association and political participation protected by ss 15 - 19 of the Bill of Rights.
The issue of the content of the slogans, whether painted on the War Memorial and the bus stop or worn on a T-shirt, as well as statements, such as those made by the third appellant in the confrontation with a student, is a delicate one. Freedom of speech must be robust and the ability to express hurt, pain and anger is vital, if the voices of those who see themselves as oppressed or disempowered are to be heard. It was rightly said in Mamabolo that:
JR1709/14
Bridgestone SA (Proprietary) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1709/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 113 (15 March 2018)
Whether misconduct relating to gross negligence did not warrant dismissal
[21] ...There is no basis for the arbitrator to trivialize the seriousness of a misconduct relating to gross negligence and in particular that which was committed by the employee. The employee was a classifier with managerial responsibility for final inspection of the applicants products, he failed to exercise the standard of care and skill that was reasonably expected of an employee with his degree of skill and experience and his conduct resulted in financial loss to the applicant. In addition, it was not in dispute that his conduct and/or omission was serious in itself. The applicant was entitled to discipline him because he owes a duty of care to it (the applicant), its clients and his own colleagues.
[22] The arbitrator put more emphasis on the employees long-term service and the fact that his previous warning was no longer valid. He failed to appreciate the nature and the importance of the rule breached; the consistency of application of the disciplinary rule and sanction; and aggravating factors. The applicant led relevant evidence that the employee was aware of the procedure to be taken to prevent the damage caused; his negligent conduct resulted in the applicants financial loss; he failed to report the incident immediately; and he failed to display remorse, to appreciate or to acknowledge his wrongdoing at the disciplinary enquiry and at the arbitration proceedings. Instead, he shifted the blame to the previous shift and to Mr. Ntseke. It is apparent that the arbitrator did not take the above factors into consideration before arriving at the finding that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh.
JR695/13
Bapela v Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR695/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 89 (2 March 2018)
transgressions have an element of dishonesty which goes to the core of the employment relationship, which is trust.
Impala Platinum Ltd v Jansen and others [2017] 4 BLLR 325 (LAC) at paras 19 to 20.
"While I agree . . . that the lack of remorse shown by appellant is relevant, even if genuine remorse had been shown by him, this would only have been a factor to be considered in his favour in determining sanction and would not have barred his dismissal, remorseful or not, having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct committed.
[19] As held in G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero NO and others,[8] an "employment relationship by its nature obliges an employee to act honestly, in good faith and to protect the interests of the employer.[9] The high premium placed on honesty in the workplace has led our courts repeatedly to find that the presence of dishonesty makes the restoration of trust, which is at the core of the employment relationship, unlikely.[10] Dismissal for dishonest conduct has been found to be fair where continued employment is intolerable and dismissal is "a sensible operational response to risk management".[11] In a recent and as yet to be reported judgment of Schwartz v Sasol Polymers and others,[12] this Court dealt with the case of an employee found guilty of conflict of interest in that his wife had received gifts from several of his employer's service providers. Unlike in this matter, the commissioner there found the employee's dismissal to be substantively unfair. In setting aside the award, this Court (upholding the Labour Court judgment on substantive fairness) held that the dishonest nature of the employee's misconduct was of such a nature as to make continued employment intolerable. It further held that it would be fundamentally unfair and unjust to expect an employer to retain in its workplace a senior employee who has shown himself to be guilty of dishonesty.[13] The court also took the view that if the employee was remorseful, the nature of the dishonesty was such that these mitigating factors could not help in mitigating the harsh sanction of dismissal. In this respect, the court held that:
JR2125/13
University of Venda v Maluleke and Others (JR2125/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 72; (2017) 38 ILJ 1376 (LC) (28 February 2017)
he would ensure that she passed the course if she had sexual intercourse (intercourse) with him
Bandat v De Kock and Another (2015) 36 ILJ 979 (LC)
What is clear from the above provisions of the code is that central to the existence of sexual harassment is conduct that must be 'unwelcome'. If the conduct is not unwelcome, it cannot be sexual harassment. The determination of whether conduct is 'unwelcome' is an objective one, because conduct that may be subjectively unwelcome to one person may not be unwelcome to another....How does one then go about in objectively determining whether the kind of conduct as set out in clause 5 of the Code is unwelcome? In my view, the first question that has to be asked is whether the conduct was ever complained about by the employee. This can be done by the perpetrator being informed that the employee considered the conduct to be unwelcome and the perpetrator then being called on to cease the conduct. Or the employee can formally pursue a complaint with more senior management using relevant harassment policies that may be applicable, or raising a grievance.
Motsamai v Everite Building Products (Pty) Ltd [2011] 2 BLLR 144 (LAC)
Sexual harassment isthe most heinous conduct that plagues the workplace; not only is it demeaning to the victim, it undermines the dignity, integrity and self worth of the employee harassed. Sexual harassment goesto the root of one's being and must therefore be viewed from the point of view of a victim; how does he/she perceive it, and whether or not the perception is reasonable.
Makoti v Jesuit Refugee Service SA (2012) 33 ILJ 1706 (LC)
The applicant's testimony of the specific acts of sexually aggressive behaviour of the director aimed at her was relatively detailed, plausible and could not be directly contradicted by the respondent. Understandably, the respondent sought to suggest that her account ought not to be believed because she never raised any grievance about it at the time. It is true that the applicant's failure to make an issue of a deeply felt grievance at the time when it was suffered calls for a plausible explanation, which must be carefully assessed.
Mokoena and Another v Garden Art Ltd and Another (2008) 29 ILJ 1196 (LC)
Sexual attention becomes sexual harassment if the behaviour is persisted in, although a single incident of harassment may constitute sexual harassment, the recipient has made it clear that the behaviour is considered offensive and the perpetrator should have known that the behaviour would be regarded as unacceptable.
Gaga v Anglo Platinum Ltd and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 329 (LAC)
if not the initial behaviour, then, at the very least, the persistence therein is unacceptable
Bandat (supra) at para 81
actual dynamic and nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the complainant.
Gaga (supra) at para 42.
The failure by the complainant to take formal steps against the appellant should be construed likewise in the light of the personal and power dynamic in the relationship, which probably operated to inhibit the complainant
It would be unfair to the employer were the appellant to be allowed to avoid liability for sexual harassment on the basis of the ignorance of his victim of the steps required to be taken in the policy and her hesitation in taking them. The complainant's evidence looked at as a whole suggests that she was uncertain about how to deal with the situation. Her conspicuous vacillation was an understandable response in a youthful and junior employee. She was placed in the invidious position of being compelled to balance her sexual dignity and integrity with her duty to respect her superior; which obligation no doubt was appreciably compromised by his behaviour.
F v Minister of Safety and Security and another(Institute for Security Studies, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa Trust and Trustees of the Women's Legal Centre as Amici Curiae) (2012) 33 ILJ 93 (CC) at para 37.
"'Sexual violence and the threat of sexual violence goes to the core of women's subordination in society. It is the single greatest threat to the self-determination of South African women.' . . . South Africa also has a duty under international law to prohibit all gender-based discrimination that has the effect or purpose of impairing the enjoyment by women of fundamental rights and freedoms and to take reasonable and appropriate measures to prevent the violation of those rights."'
JR2088/14
Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2088/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 45 (14 February 2017)
his dismissal was substantively fair.
JR1815/14
Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR1815/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 51 (7 February 2017)
CCMA finds dismissal harsh and reinstate.Code of Good Practice: Dismissalapplied.Negligence not necessarily Dishonest.
32] There is no legal basis to support a view that if a court rejects a partys version on the facts, then there must necessarily and automatically follow a conclusion that that party was dishonest. In any event, the Code of Good Practice provides a guide to arbitrators on what may constitute a serious misconduct of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. This includes gross dishonesty, wilful damage to the property of the employer, wilful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault and gross insubordination. The Code enjoins commissioners that even if they found the misconduct to be serious, they still cannot conclude that a dismissal sanction is appropriate without further considering the personal circumstances of the employee, the nature of the job and the circumstances of the infringement itself. These the commissioner has taken fully into account in this case and has, in my view, come to a reasonable decision. The Code of Good Practice is mandatory and must be taken into account when a commissioner decides on the sanction.
JR960/14
Solidarity obo Pio v Department of Public Works: Roads and Transport, North West and Others (JR960/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 50 (7 February 2017)
depiction of Phetos identity in Pios Cellphone as'Kaf',
[38] And so is the word Kaf when used in reference to a black person, at least in South Africa. I say South Africa because this is the only country in the world that has a history of institutionalised separation and racism, was riddled with and still continues to writhe in the grime of the racial slur and the past. Even if one were to take the dictionary meaning of the word Kaf, as chaff in English: worthless things, trash, garbage, trash, chopped hay and straws used as fodder, one still finds a meaning that denigrates, insults, demeans and humiliates, Pheto. In any event, there was no doubt that Pio knew and understood the word Kaf to mean kaffir, as came out from his retort when Pheto called and asked to speak to him[23]. There is no indication of anyone accusing him of using the word kaffir at all at that time. He knew exactly what he was dealing with, and that he had to defend or justify himself for the use of the slur. He knew what the word was and that any black person would have been offended by it....47] The commissioner did deal with this aspect in the award. He accepted that cognisance could be taken that the word Kaf is a slang for kaffir. It is also universally known that the term kaffir is used in South Africa to refer negatively to a black person and is perceived by black people as a highly offensive ethnic slur. Even if it were to be accepted that Pio meant chaff, in my view, it would still have been highly inappropriate to identify your colleague with an invective. Chaff means dirt, and it could easily have been perceived by Pheto as a racist term, given the history of race relations and the continued racial tensions that are prevalent in the country. The commissioner has therefore correctly pointed out that our courts have found that the use of this term was a fair reason for dismissing an employee.
Rustenburg Platinum Mine v SAEWA obo Bester and Others (JR130/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 75.
at the core of these decisions is the decisive break that the Constitution represent from a past in which racism was institutionalised and legitimised (see S v Makwanyane and another [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)) and that racism in the workplace is not to be tolerated. ...What the Modikwa Mining judgment (and many others) demonstrate is that despite the formal dismantling of institutional apartheid, issues of race and racism remain prevalent in South African workplaces. The use of racial identifiers plays an obvious role in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes. The concept of race, as a social construct, continues to be imbued with ideological baggage and can serve the purposes of subjugation, where particular race groups continue to be viewed as other.
referred with approval to another judgment from this court,Modikwa Mining Personnel Services(2013) 34 ILJ 373 (LC), in which Gabie AJ reviewed a number of decisions by this court in which incidents of racism in the workplace were at issue (see, for example,Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry v Kapp and others(2002) 23 ILJ 863 (LAC),Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd v Hill(1998) 19 ILJ 1112 (LAC)).
Corruption by a police officer, employed in a position of trust and with a duty to perform his or her functions in the interest of society and in accordance with the fundamental values of the Constitution, is a material factor to be considered in determining the appropriateness of the sanction to be imposed. Not only is it a 'sensible operational response to risk management' but it provides a sound reason to justify a finding that the imposition of the sanction of dismissal was fair in the circumstances.
[52]It is untenable for the individual applicant to in essence plead ignorance, considering all that had happened. As I have already said above, it is hard to believe that the individual applicant, on the probabilities, did not know what was happening on 5 April 2011. The circumstances were simply too suspicious and unusual to be ignored or for the individual applicant to legitimately claim ignorance. And added to that, I could find no trace of an explanation by the individual applicant as to what happened to the copper which was left in TZ 16 he drove away in.
Mphigalale v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 1464 (LC) at para 24.
JR2560/14
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union obo Biyela v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2560/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 38 (7 February 2017)
holding employees collectively accountable as a group, without having to prove the individual misconduct of each and every member of the group, is not foreign to employment law.[54] I am therefore satisfied that the conclusion of the second respondent to the effect that the individual applicant was indeed involved in the misconduct of soliciting a bribe from the two suspects, was not irregular, would in any event constitute a reasonable outcome, and as such, should be upheld. It follows that the individual applicants dismissal was fair, and the second respondents finding that this was indeed the case must be upheld.
Foschini Group v Maidi and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 1787 (LAC) at para 47.
In Chauke's case the Labour Appeal Court accepted that this type of matter presents a difficult problem for fair employment practices, and illustrated the problem by posing the following question: 'Where misconduct necessitating the disciplinary action is proved, but management is unable to pinpoint the perpetrator or perpetrators, in what circumstances will it be permissible to dismiss a group of workers which incontestably included them?' Cameron JA then postulated two lines of justification for a fair dismissal in such circumstances. The first is where an employee, who is part of the group of perpetrators, is under a duty to assist the employer in bringing the guilty to book. The second is where an employee 'has or may reasonably be supposed to have information concerning the guilty, his or her failure to come forward with the information may itself amount to misconduct. The relationship between employer and employee is in its essentials is one of trust and confidence, and, even at common law, conduct clearly inconsistent with that essential warranted termination of employment Failure to assist an employer in bringing the guilty to book violates this duty and may itself justify dismissal'. The learned judge of appeal further held that this derived justification is wide enough 'to encompass those innocent of it, but who through their silence make themselves guilty of a derivative violation of trust and confidence'.
Western Platinum Refinery Ltd v Hlebela and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 2280 (LAC) at para 8.
Furthermore, the anterior premise of these considerations is that an employee is a witness to wrongdoing, not a perpetrator. The misconduct lies within the bosom of a general duty of good faith to rat on the wrongdoers, not on culpable participation, even in a lesser degree than other perpetrators. The employee is thus not a person who has made common cause with the perpetrators. A disinclination to disclose the wrongdoing from a sentiment of worker solidarity or some other subjective sentiment of solidarity falling short of common purpose is likely to be a typical explanation for non-disclosure, but is per se not a defence to a charge of a breach of a duty of good faith.
rue Blue Foods (Pty) Ltd t/a Kentucky Fried Chicken v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 1375 (LC) at para 46.
What is clear to me is that in the case of 'team misconduct' just as in the case of derivative misconduct and common cause purpose there is no need to prove individual guilt. It is sufficient that the employee is a member of the team, a team the members which have individually failed to ensure that the team meets its obligations
Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Khanyile and Others (2016) 37 ILJ 2065 (LC) at para 42.
the derivative misconduct the applicants relied upon related, in addition to failing to identify the perpetrators, to a breach of trust arising from the failure to come forward. Either to identify the perpetrators or to exonerate themselves
The effect of these dicta is to elucidate the principle that an employee bound implicitly by a duty of good faith towards the employer breaches that duty by remaining silent about knowledge possessed by the employee regarding the business interests of the employer being improperly undermined. Uncontroversially, and on general principle, a breach of the duty of good faith can justify a dismissal. Non-disclosure of knowledge relevant to misconduct committed by fellow employees is an instance of a breach of the duty of good faith. Importantly, the critical point made by bothFAWU v ABIandLeeson Motorsis that a dismissal of an employee is derivativelyjustified in relation to the primary misconduct committed by unknown others, where an employee, innocent of actual perpetration of misconduct, consciously chooses not to disclose information known to that employee pertinent to the wrongdoing. ...Perhaps obvious, but important to stress in relation to the facts of this case, the disclosure of information relevant to the wrongdoing, pursuant to the duty of good faith, ought not be dependent upon a specific request for relevant information; often the wrongdoing per se might not be known to the employer. Mere actual knowledge by an employee should trigger a duty to disclose.
JR991/15
Civilcon (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo N.O. and Others (JR991/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 62 (6 February 2017)
12]It is apparent that the employee in the present matter refused to obey the instruction relating to compliance with a safety rule. The rule concerned everybody's safety including himself. He, in my view, provided no satisfactory explanation as to why he would not comply with the rule. He continued to disobey the rule despite two warnings given against him. It has also not been disputed that the failure to comply with the safety rule carried with it considerable risk related to the possibility of hard objects hitting the employee on the head. This exposed the applicant to the risk of failing to comply with the safety regulations.
JR641/2016
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited v UASA obo Pietersen and Others (JR641/2016) [2018] ZALCJHB 72 (27 February 2018)
conduct did not amount to unwanted sexual harassment...depict a love proposal...incident at the safety braai event
29] Item 3 of the 2005 Code deems sexual harassment as a form of unfair discrimination within the ambit of Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. Item 4 sets out the test for sexual harassment[5], whilst Item 5 outlines the factors to establish sexual harassment[6].
Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers and Others (CA 14/2014) [2015] ZALCCT 62 (23 October 2015)
By its nature such harassment creates an offensive and very often intimidating work environment that undermines the dignity, privacy and integrity of the victim and creates a barrier to substantive equality in the workplace. It is for this reason that this Court has characterised it as the most heinous misconduct that plagues a workplace (Authorities omitted)
Motsamai v Everite Building Products (Pty) Ltd [2011] 2 BLLR 144 (LAC) at para [20]
Sexual harassment is the most heinous misconduct that plagues a workplace; not only is it demeaning to the victim, it undermines the dignity, integrity and self-worth of the employee harassed. The harshness of the wrong is compounded when the victim suffers it at the hands of his/her supervisor. Sexual harassment goes to the root of ones being and must therefore be viewed from the point of view of a victim: how does he/she perceive it, and whether or not the perception is reasonable
And,
At its core, sexual harassment is concerned with the exercise of power and in the main reflects the power relations that exist both in society generally and specifically within a particular workplace. While economic power may underlie many instances of harassment, a sexually hostile working environment is often less about the abuse of real economic power, and more about the perceived societal power of men over women. This type of power abuse often is exerted by a (typically male) co-worker and not necessarily a supervisor.
JR15/15
Manzini v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR15/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 61 (16 February 2018)
[41] It is trite that a claim of constructive dismissal would be unsustainable in circumstances where flowing from a grievance hearing and outcomes, an employee resigns prior to those outcomes being implemented in order to address the source of the grievance. In this case, the applicants conduct of resigning in circumstances where he had rebuffed efforts to address his grievance or failed to afford the employer an opportunity to implement grievance hearing outcomes in order to address his grievances, cannot lead to a conclusion that the Municipalitys conduct had made working conditions intolerable for him. Added is the conclusion that the applicant clearly resigned in the face of the impending disciplinary hearing.
Jabari v Telkom SA (Pty) Ltd 5 (2006) 27 ILJ 1854 (LC); De Klerk v Cape Union Mart International (Pty) Ltd (2012) 33 ILJ 2887 (LC)
[35] Clearly there is a difficulty with the applicants approach. The first is that the mere that an employee has laid a grievance cannot by all accounts, imply that an employer is not entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings against that employee. Of course, there would be a problem if the disciplinary measures are taken in retaliation for the lodging of a grievance
Old Mutual Group Schemes v Dreyer & Another (1999) 20 ILJ 2030 (LAC) para 18
an employee who has an option of facing a disciplinary enquiry cannot simply resign and claim constructive dismissal
JR633/16
Compass Group Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Van der Merwe N.O. and Others (JR633/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 49 (9 February 2018)
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Tokiso Dispute Settlement [2015] 9 BLLR 887 (LAC) ; Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v CCMA [2008] 12 BLLR 1211 (LAC)
The employees case is however distinguishable because she was charged and found guilty of essentially theft, concocted a mendacious defence, showed no genuine remorse and occupied a position where trust is a key factor.
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others [2000] 9 BLLR 995 (LAC); Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others [2008] 9 BLLR 838 (LAC)
justifies a strict approach to dishonest conduct in the workplace on the basis of the employers operational requirements.[8] This approach is applicable in this case considering the nature of the applicants business and the fact that a business at risk through persistent pilfering also places in jeopardy the security of employment of all employees.
Miyambo v CCMA & others [2010] 10 ILJ 1017 (LAC)
justifies a strict approach to dishonest conduct in the workplace on the basis of the employers operational requirements.[8
JR1767/14
South Africa Municipal Workers Union obo Chauke v Moretele Local Municipality and Others (JR1767/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 36 (8 February 2018)
This is a typical case where progressive disciple should have been preferred.
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Tokiso Dispute Settlement and Others [2015] ZALAC 23; [2015] 9 BLLR 887 (LAC); (2015) 36 ILJ 2273 (LAC) at para 18.
[18] But the law does not allow an employer to adopt a zero tolerance approach for all infractions, regardless of its appropriateness or proportionality to the offence, and then expect a commissioner to fall in line with such an approach. The touchstone of the law of dismissal is fairness and an employer cannot contract out of it or fashion, as if it were, a no go area for commissioners. A zero tolerance policy would be appropriate where, for example, the stock is gold but it would not necessarily be appropriate where an employee of the same employer removes a crust of bread otherwise designed for the refuse bin. Commissioners should be vigilant and examine the circumstances of each case to ensure that the constitutional right to fair labour practices, more particularly to a dismissal that is fair, is afforded to employees. (Emphasis added).
JR839/2011
Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA obo Mawelela and Others (JR839/2011) [2018] ZALCJHB 35 (8 February 2018)
The arbitrator found that the applicant should have followed the incapacity procedure as provided for in Item 10 of Schedule 8 of the LRA. As a result, he found that the employees dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. It is this finding that the applicant seeks to challenge.
arbitrator based his award on the question whether the employee was fairly dismissed for incapacity on the grounds of ill health. He found that the employees dismissal for incapacity was procedurally and substantively unfair. In so doing, he misconceived the nature of the enquiry before him.
JR815/15
Duncanmec (Pty) Ltd v William and Others (JR815/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 34 (8 February 2018)
The arbitrator considered the evidence before him before coming to the conclusion that such an inference(under the influence of alchohol was not supported by the facts before him.
JS533/16
Khumalo v University of Johannesburg (JS533/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 31 (6 February 2018)
LTE Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others
misrepresentations made in curriculum vitae or interviews, or an omission to disclose certain pertinent facts in curriculum vitae should be dealt with harshly by the courts, even if the misrepresentations or omissions are discovered after the employment had commenced.
G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero N.O. and Others (2017) 38 ILJ 881 (LAC) at para 26
The employment relationship by its nature obliges an employee to act honestly, in good faith and to protect the interests of the employer. The high premium placed on honesty in the workplace has led our courts repeatedly to find that the presence of dishonesty makes the restoration of trust, which is at the core of the employment relationship, unlikely. Dismissal for dishonest conduct has been found to be fair where continued employment is intolerable and dismissal is a sensible operational response to risk management. Obtaining employment on false pretences whether by misrepresenting qualifications, skills, experience or prior work history has been found to justify dismissal, with it stated in Boss Logistics v Phopi and others that if this were not so, a sanction short of dismissal would only serve to reward dishonesty. (Authorities omitted)
JR1445/14
HRR Schaefer Vervoer (Emds) Bpk v SATAWU obob Moleta and Others (JR1445/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 28 (6 February 2018)
Somyo v Ross Poultry Breeders (Pty) Ltd (1997) 7 BLLR 862 (LAC)
The offence was a serious driving violation, and made more serious by the potential damage to life and valuable property that could have been caused had there been a collision. The courts have held that where the consequences of a single act or omission are particularly serious or where an employee holds a position of trust in which negligence on a single occasion may have had disastrous consequences, dismissal may be justified on the first occasion
JR1394/16
Khumalo v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry and Others (JR1394/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 58 (2 February 2018)
The evidence that served before the arbitrator was that the applicant had infringed a workplace rule, that he had been warned on three previous occasions for the same offence and that a final written warning was in place at the time that he committed the offence for which he was ultimately dismissed. I fail to appreciate how it can be said that in those circumstances, the arbitrators decision to the effect that dismissal was an appropriate sanction
PA1/2017
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others v Blue Pump on Union (Pty) Ltd and Others (PA1/2017) [2017] ZALAC 77 (30 November 2017)
instruction given was reasonable and that the employees had refused to comply with on the basis that it was unreasonable.
Sylvania Metals (Pty) Ltd v Mello N.O and Others [2016] ZALAC 52 at para 16; National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers obo Mani and Others v National Lotteries Board 2014 (3) SA 544 (CC); 2014 (6) BCLR 663 (CC); [2014] 7 BLLR 621 (CC); (2014) 35 ILJ 1885 (CC).
[14] The employees conduct in refusing to comply with the employers reasonable workplace instruction constituted insubordination.[3] They were progressively cautioned that their conduct was serious and were made aware that they risked dismissal if they persisted with their refusal to comply with the instruction given to them. After they had been invited to consult with their trade union and given the opportunity to leave work to do so, they did not alter their stance. This led to a final written warning being issued to them before they were sent home and told to return to work the next shift allocated to them. On their return to work, the employees persisted with their refusal to comply with the instruction. By so doing, their conduct amounted to a serious and willful breach of their obligation to adhere to and comply with the employers lawful authority
See Grogan Dismissal, Discrimination and Unfair Labour Practices 2 ed (Juta & Co Ltd, Cape Town 2007) at 307; Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union of SA and Another v Wooltru Ltd t/a Woolworths (Randburg) (1989) 10 ILJ 311 (IC) at 314H-J; Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 1511 (LAC) at para 22; National Trading Co v Hiazo (1994) 15 ILJ 1304 (LAC); [1994] 12 BLLR 53 (LAC) at 1308H-J.
their conduct amounted to a serious and willful breach of their obligation to adhere to and comply with the employers lawful authority.
JA43/16
National Transport Movement (NTM) and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Limited (PRASA) (JA43/16) [2017] ZALAC 71; [2018] 2 BLLR 141 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 560 (LAC) (21 November 2017)
Held further that the employers reliance upon the principle of derivative misconduct was misplaced and unjustified. In essence, the striking employees were dismissed not for derivative misconduct but rather for collective misconduct, a notion which is wholly repugnant to our law, not only because it runs counter to the tenets of natural justice but also because it is incompatible with the established principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Consistency in the application of dismissal principle restated - the penalty of dismissal was not applied consistently to all the employees who participated in the strike. This practice is clearly inconsistent with the requirement of consistency as contemplated in item 3(6) of the Code of Good Practice for Dismissals. Appeal upheld Labour Courts judgment set aside employees dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair- employees reinstated.
TAWUSA obo TAU and others v Barplats Mine Limited (Crocodile River Mine) [2009] 30 ILJ 2791 (LC) at para [29].
[29] PRASA accordingly relied upon the concept of derivative misconduct as justification for the dismissals of the striking employees. The principle of derivative misconduct may be relied upon by an employer where there is no direct evidence that the dismissed employees committed the primary misconduct that led to them being charged and dismissed. In the case of derivative misconduct, the employee is liable for a separate and quite distinct offence from the primary misconduct. The derivative misconduct is the employees failure to offer reasonable assistance to an employer to disclose information about individuals who are responsible for the primary misconduct. The employee who is accused of derivative misconduct needs not associated with the primary misconduct
[30] Where the employer relies on derivative misconduct, the employer must prove on a balance of probabilities that the employee committed the misconduct. This would require the employer to prove the following main elements of derivative misconduct namely, the employee knew or must have known about the primary misconduct, but elected, without justification, not to disclose what he or she knew.
Western Platinum Refinery Limited v Hlebela [2015] 36 ILJ 2280 (LAC).
(vii) An employee cannot be guilty of derivative misconduct on the basis of negligently failing to take steps to acquire knowledge of the primary wrongdoing.
NUM and Others v Grogin NO and Another [2010] ILL 25713 (LAC).
[31] As was held in Western Platinum Refinery v Hlebela, it is not sufficient that the employees may possibly know about the primary misconduct. The employer must prove on a balance of probabilities that each and every employee was in possession of information or ought reasonably to have possessed information that could have assisted the employer in its investigations.
NUM and Others v Grogin NO (supra) at para [62].
The test implies that the employees must have been called upon to provide this information. And that [w]ithout prima facie evidence that any of the employees did have information [about the principal misconduct]one cannot conclude that the employees failure to cooperate necessarily meant that they either did have or must have had something to hide
the proposition that the employee must have known about the primary misconduct, as a result of his or her presence at the place where, and time when, the primary misconduct took place, has no application in this case.[46] I accordingly consider PRASAs reliance upon the principle of derivative misconduct to be misplaced and unjustified. In essence, the striking employees were dismissed not for derivative misconduct but rather for collective misconduct, a notion which is wholly repugnant to our law, not only because it runs counter to the tenets of natural justice but also because it is incompatible with the established principle of innocent until proven guilty. This, in my view, renders the employees dismissals both substantively and procedurally unfair.
(vi) The employee needs not have made common purpose with the perpetrator;
(v) While there is a general duty to disclose wrongdoing, the non-disclosure may also be affected by whether the employee was specifically asked for that information;
(iv) The rank of the employee may affect the gravity of the non-disclosure;
(iii) The gravity of the non-disclosure must be proportionate to the gravity of the primary misconduct;
(ii) Non-disclosure must be deliberate;
(i) The employee must have had actual knowledge of the wrongdoing, otherwise the blameworthiness cannot be attributed to him or her;
following considerations are relevant to derivative misconduct:
JA59/2016
Central University of Technology v Channer and Others (JA59/2016) [2017] ZALAC 66 (1 November 2017)
[39] In light of the seriously dishonest conduct of the employee, the sanction of dismissal was appropriate.
[38] As stated at the outset of this discussion, viewed in its totality, the evidence evinces a scheme of quotation rigging perpetrated by the employee to ensure that F van den Heever Dekoratief got the contract to paint the fence. To attain that objective, the employee not only told lies, which were the subject of certain of the charges, but also lied to Ms Prinsloo, for example, about the existence of the third quote which he alleged was probably in the office of Mr Britz, while he knew full well that he had told Mr Van den Heever to put the quote under the door of his office and not in the quotation box.
JA53/16
Grindrod Logistics (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU obo Kgwele and Others (JA53/16) [2017] ZALAC 60; (2018) 39 ILJ 144 (LAC) (18 October 2017)
Held that the employer is required to apply the penalty of dismissal consistently in a precedent-setting system for essentially similar misdemeanours as employees who were sanctioned in the past as the misconduct under consideration. Although the employee contended that the employees faced with same offence were not dismissed, the employer failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that those employees personal circumstances differed significantly from those of the employee. Employees dismissal substantively unfair. Consequently, the Labour Courts judgment upheld albeit for different reasons appeal dismissed.
PA8/16
Fort v COEGA Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (PA8/16) [2017] ZALAC 50 (17 August 2017)
on account of her conflict of interest/unethical conduct (nepotism) and influencing the recruitment process - substantively unfair.
[97] In Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others[15] this Court restated the consistently adopted approach, laid down in the jurisprudence of the Labour Court in Standard Bank SA Ltd v CCMA & others[16] to the effect that it is one of the fundamentals of the employment relationship that the employer should be able to place trust in their employees to discharge their responsibilities dutifully. A breach of this trust in the form of conduct involving dishonesty, as in this case, is one that goes to the heart of the employment relationship and is destructive of it.The sanction of dismissal must be seen as a sensible operational response to risk management in the particular enterprise.[17]Nepotism has a damaging effect on the positive corporate culture and is a potential threat to the morale of other employees. I am satisfied that dismissal is the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.
Workforce Group v McLintock and Others (DA08/16) [2017] ZALAC 49; (2017) 38 ILJ 2517 (LAC) (1 August 2017)
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2008) 29 ILJ 2581 (LAC); See also Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others 2009 (3) SA 493 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 829 (SCA); Absa Bank Ltd v Naidu & others (2015) 36 ILJ 602 (LAC); Miyambo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2031 (LAC); Standard Bank of SA Ltd v CCMA and Others (1998) 19 ILJ 903 (LC) at 913 para 38.
JA107/2015
Moen v Qube Systems Proprietary Limited and Others (JA107/2015) [2017] ZALAC 31; [2017] 11 BLLR 1096 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2712 (LAC) (31 May 2017)
[27] In light of the finding that Brassey AJs order stands to be set aside on the basis that the learned judge applied the incorrect test and that the decision of the arbitrator is not one of which it can be said that a reasonable arbitrator could not have reached on the material placed before him.
[26] Viewed in its totally, the evidence does reveal that the appellant did not notify anyone at first respondent, in particular, Mr Dyson, that he was receiving information about first respondents bank account or that he took steps to rectify the position. But alone this is insufficient to conclude, on the evidence that was placed before the Commissioner, that the result reached, namely that on the charges brought by first respondent, the dismissal of appellant was unreasonable in terms of the proper test for review which must be applied.
First respondent is to pay the appellant compensation in the amount R936 000.00
CA6/2016 South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd v Hansen and Others (CA6/2016) [2017] ZALAC 29; (2017) 38 ILJ 1766 (LAC); [2017] 9 BLLR 892 (LAC) (25 May 2017)
"Julle k****s is almal donnerse ewe onnosel
Matter resolves around the credibility finding on the credibility of the various factual witnesses; their reliability; and the probabilities
However, where the word kaffir is used, as is the case here, its derogatory connotation is so blatant as to be taken as established. It bears repetition, in this regard, that being called a kaffir is one of the worst insults in the South African context.[13] However, the employer will still bear the onus to prove that the employee uttered the derogatory word/s.
JA16/16
South African Medical Association obo Pietz v Department of Health - Gauteng and Others (JA16/16) [2017] ZALAC 25; [2017] 9 BLLR 923 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2297 (LAC) (4 May 2017)
grossly negligent and had acted in a reckless and uncaring manner with regard to the patients; the respondent (the department) did not follow the proper procedure the applicant was given an opportunity to explain his actions to the respondent in a letter dated the 30th of November 2009 which he failed to do.
Substantively fair dismissal
JA45/16
SAEWA obo Bester v Rustenburg Platinum Mine and Another (JA45/16) [2017] ZALAC 23; (2017) 38 ILJ 1779 (LAC); [2017] 8 BLLR 764 (LAC) (3 May 2017)
Employer bore the evidentiary burden in the arbitration proceedings to prove that the language used was objectively derogatory. The test is an objective one - the court must examine the entire context in which the misconduct is alleged to have occurred and decide on a balance of probabilities whether the employee is guilty of such conduct and whether the employer has discharged the onus of proof - Once that is established on the evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove the existence of a ground of justification and that the derogatory or racist remark was not made with the intent to demean. Evidence shows that the employee had no reason to denigrate his fellow employee as he did have a need to identify the other employee - a person whose name, rank and division was unknown to him - and he used race as a descriptor in doing so. The employee was charged with making a racial remark by referring to a fellow employee as a swartman when requesting that he moved his vehicle. There is no conceivable reason why race might justifiably have served as an identifier.
Modikwa Mining Personnel Services v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 373 (LC).
What the Modikwa Mining judgment (and many others) demonstrate is that despite the formal dismantling of institutional apartheid, issues of race and racism remain prevalent in South African workplaces. The use of racial identifiers plays an obvious role in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes. The concept of race, as a social construct, continues to be imbued with ideological baggage and can serve the purpose of subjugation, where particular race groups continue to be viewed as other.
Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry v Kapp and Others [2002] 6 BLLR 493 (LAC) at para 38, South African Revenue Services v Kruger [2017] 1 BLLR 8 (CC).
[15] It is close on two decades since the dismantling of the apartheid regime, yet racism remains a key challenge to our democracy. Racism is particularly pervasive in the workplace, where concerned employers have adopted a zero-tolerance approach to racist conduct and the use of racial expressions or epithets which are derogatory by making such misconduct a dismissible offence. Our courts have correspondingly dealt with acts of racism, and the use of racist language in particular, very firmly visiting upon such conduct the sanction of dismissal.
DA6/2015
Sasol Nitro v National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry and Others (DA6/2015) [2017] ZALAC 22; [2017] 9 BLLR 883 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2322 (LAC) (3 May 2017)
[25] The pornography count looms large. Yet the charge, which draws on the text of the disciplinary code paragraph 6.5(c), in my view, despite the way it was relied upon in the proceedings, seems not obviously to be an injunction that covers the keeping of pornography on the laptop. Paragraph 6.5 (l) of the code deals with indecency and accepted community norms and might have been a closer match, but Reddy was not charged with that. Still less was he charged under paragraph 6.5 (n) of the code, which concerns itself with the reputation of Nitro being tarnished. Viewing pornography per se is not a criminal act, unless, of course, it is child pornography, an accusation not made in this case. deplorable as it may be, and moreover, no evidence exists to prove he viewed it instead of doing his job. What was left of the charge, was in, truth, as alluded to above, no more than abusing the laptop for private purposes.
JA19/2015
IDWU obo Linda and Others v Super Group and Others (JA19/2015) [2017] ZALAC 17; (2017) 38 ILJ 1292 (LAC); [2017] 10 BLLR 969 (LAC) (28 February 2017)
[37] Accordingly, despite the employees having been guilty of desertion, and despite the serious consequences for the business credibility of the employer, the sanction of dismissal was inappropriate. Allowing due weight to the effect of their misconduct on the business credibility of the employer, a final written warning would be proportionate to their delinquency. If there had been no other opportunity to be placed, as appears to be the case, the employees would have faced retrenchment.
JA48/15
Damelin (Pty) Ltd v Solidarity obo Parkinson and Others (JA48/15) [2017] ZALAC 6; (2017) 38 ILJ 872 (LAC); [2017] 7 BLLR 672 (LAC) (10 January 2017)
employee dismissed for failing to meet stipulated target court finding that period to meet target, after a warning, was too short or that target was incapable of being achieved. Appeal dismissed with costs; period of some 27 days within which to achieve the reduced target set in that letter, given all that preceded it and taking into account that it was not achieved even with assistance afforded by Damelin head office goes to show that either the period was too short or that the target was incapable of being achieved.
Palace Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Ngcobo and Others (2014) 35 ILJ 1971 (LAC).
Although a senior employee is indeed expected to be able to assess whether he is performing according to standard and accordingly does not need the degree of regulation or training that lower skilled employees require in order to perform their functions, an employer is not absolved from providing such an employee with resources that are essential for the achievement of the required standard or set targets.
JR2265/14
Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd Matla Coal v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2265/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 447 (1 December 2017)
The Applicant argues that Venters evidence, by virtue of his position as chief safety representative, should be accepted.
JR534/12
Paraxel International (Pty) Ltd v Chakane N.O. and Others (JR534/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 435; (2018) 39 ILJ 644 (LC) (21 November 2017)
Item 10 and 11 Schedule 8 to the Labour Relations Act
Standard Bank of South Africa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others [2007] ZALC 98; [2008] 4 BLLR 356 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 1239 at paras 70 -76.
an enquiry to justify an incapacity dismissal may take a few days or years, depending mainly on the prognosis for the employees recovery, whether any adjustments work and whether accommodating the employee becomes an unjustified hardship for the employer.
MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v Matji NO and Others [2007] ZALC 40 at paras 14 15.
As regards the second issue, there was no evidence before the first respondent that the third respondent had any say in the applicants consideration of alternative positions of a less stressful hue. Whether or not such positions indeed existed is a separate enquiry.
[29] These principles are trite. By now it is reasonable to expect that employers clearly understand the obligations in terms of Items 10 and 11 of the Code. Even though an employer may not be obliged to retain an employee who is not productive, fairness requires that a proper assessment be made of whether that situation has been reached before the employer resorts to dismissal.[12] Such an assessment cannot be undertaken in an arbitrary manner and without properly consulting the employee on possible alternatives.[13]
AECI Explosives Ltd (Zomerveld) v Mambalu (1995) 16 ILJ 1505 (LAC)
[35] ...the court held that there should be a distinction between dismissal for persistent but intermittent absence for ill health and dismissal for prolonged absence owing to long-term illness. In that matter, the employee was dismissed for persistent but intermittent absence for ill health. The court stated that a persistent but intermittent absence for ill health should be treated as analogous to a disciplinary matter capable of being regarded as a dismissal for misconduct as opposed to incapacity. The procedure followed by the employer was found to be fair as it had given the employee warnings to improve his attendance at work; it had given him the opportunity to make representations; it had investigated his claim that his working conditions were the cause of his illness and found that that claim had no substance; and, finally when there was no adequate improvement in the employees attendance record, it had been justified in treating the persistent absences as a sufficient reason for dismissing him.
It appears from all the evidence that the applicants decision to dismiss her was based not so much on her incapacity as her long and persistent periods of absence from work due to ill-health. That is why the applicant insisted that the enquiry before the first respondent should have been formulated broader than it was to make reference to the habitual and persistent absenteeism of the third respondent. That is not the test. The test is whether the third respondent was at the time of dismissal capable of rendering her services to the applicant. She was never given a chance to prove that she was. I am thus satisfied that the first respondent asked and answered the correct question.
JR435/15
Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Letsoalo (JR435/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 445 (20 November 2017)
Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v Media Workers Union SA, on behalf of McKay and others (2013) 34 ILJ 143 (LC).
This court, has held on numerous occasions that in the face of dishonesty by an employee, there is very little chance of the trust relationship being rebuilt. Dismissal is general seen as a fair sanction in those circumstances. The arbitration in this case did not consider that aspect of the case before him. That failure makes his finding on sanction so unreasonable that no other arbitrator could have reached the same conclusion. In those circumstances the award must be reviewed and set aside.
[37] The employers decision to dismiss was fair, having regard to the importance of the rule, and all the other factors. And more specifically, the importance of the trust relationship with regard to a person that works in the receiving department of a retail organisation, and this evidence was not disputed by the applicant.
JR1090/2015
NUM obo Namane v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1090/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 455 (6 November 2017)
It is further my determination that the originality of the forms should not have been a determining factor whether the applicant has indeed committed misconduct or not. In fact, in terms of the evidence led, it is clear that the leave forms were requested from a number of employees after it became apparent that the system did not balance as far as leaves are concerned. It is therefore unfair to limit his determination to the applicant when the applicant was not the only employee who had submitted copies of the leave forms.
JR2512/13
Lekoba v Smollan Cape (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR2512/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 453 (5 November 2017)
report generated for 26 June 2013, the vehicle in question was driven at a top speed of 202km/h. Grant-Olivier under extensive cross-examination by Lekoba also explained how the system worked, how data and speed was recorded, and how the devices operated separately from odometers in the vehicle. She testified that the odometer was not relevant for the purposes of speed reading, as the information on the device was generated from the satellite GPS. Dismissal fair.
JR52/15
JDG Trading Pty Ltd t/a Barnetts v Mthukwane N.O. and Others (JR52/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 504 (25 October 2017)
The Third Respondent assaulted a member of public in the Applicants shop. The Second Respondent found that the Third Respondent acted in self-defence. The award set aside as the Second Respondent misapplied the principle of self-defence. However, Self-Defence can still be successfully pleaded in the employment context and should not be equated with a brawl.
[25] Self-defence can be exceeded and it is on this aspect that I need to find out if the commissioner properly dealt with. It is trite law that where a defender uses more force that is reasonably necessary to repel an attack, the defender would be guilty of assault on the attacker and the defender would not be able to rely on self-defence
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited v Mwachanda JR 2283/09, Delivered 10 April 2014 (Wilken AJ)
[24] In this case I deliberately started the focus on whether or not the Third Respondent exceeded the bounds of self-defence. Obviously to start at this level means I have given, only for purposes of this argument, a benefit to the Third Respondent that Cynthia started the fight. It will come to the fore somewhere in this judgment that such a benefit was also quite generous.
[23] I disagree. Self-defence once proven constitutes a basis of exonerating an employee at the work place. It is a complete defence. Such a defence is still applicable in our labour jurisprudence. Exonerating an employee on self-defence but continue finding him guilty for being involved of a brawl negates the very protection of self-defence available to an attacked employee. Regard should be had that if the defence could have been avoided, then such would no longer constitute self-defence but an attack. The requirements of self-defence are trite. I intend not dissect the rest of the requirements that must be proven for self-defence to be sustainable.
JR993/14
UTI Pharma v GIWUSA obo Luvatsha and Others Whitcher (JR993/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 378 (16 October 2017)
[23] In my view, considering the first respondents did attempt to comply with a written rule, it is arguable that they should have received a severe sanction short of dismissal.
[22] The applicant submitted that the first respondents were on final written warnings at the time of the offence. It however failed to establish with reference to the record of evidence that the warnings were for a similar offence. The warnings thus have no bearing on whether the dismissal was fair.
[21] The next issue is whether the dismissal of the first respondents was fair.
JR810/15
NTM obo Tunyiswa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR810/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 374 (10 October 2017)
The South African Law of Evidence Zeffertt and Paizes 2nd Edition at p 48
[13] The Second Respondent was enjoined to apply the civil standard of proof to the conflicting versions by considering the force, strength and weight of the evidence. Where the quantum of proof requires a preponderance or balance of probability, it means that the probability of the truth of a particular averment is measured or balanced against the probability of it being untrue.
[14] The evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the Third Respondents case that the Applicant was guilty of lending money to Magaboya at an exorbitant interest rate.
JR664/15
Swissport SA (Pty) Ltd v Seanego and Others (JR664/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 371 (10 October 2017)
1. The award of the Fourth Respondent under case number GAEK9038-14 is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an order that the dismissal of the First and Second Respondents was for a fair reason and in compliance with a fair procedure.
FAWU obo Meyer v Rainbow Chickens [2003] 2 BALR 140 (CCMA)
it was held that the dismissal of a chicken slaughterer who could not perform his duties after his accreditation to slaughter was withdrawn by the Muslim Judicial Council was justified
SA Private Security Workers Union on behalf of Nomavila and Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd (2016) 37 ILJ 2172 (CCMA)
[27] I am satisfied that the matter before me involves incapacity through a permanent impossibility of performance as a result of a supervening factor such factor not being caused or created by either the employee or the employer.
JR2224/15
Zitha v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2224/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 350 (3 October 2017)
gross negligence for failing to verify that merchandise properly returned before authorising refund
[13]Once it is accepted that the employee was given on-the-job training (or that the commissioners finding to that effect was reasonable), then it seems to me that a finding (implicitly made by the commissioner) that the employee was grossly negligent on 21 February 2015 is also not unreasonable. In effect, the employee was guilty of a dereliction of her duties, such as to qualify as gross negligence.
JR1524/2015
Exarro Coal (Pty) Ltd t.a Grootgeluk Coal Mine v Maduma and Others (JR1524/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 348; (2017) 38 ILJ 2531 (LC) (29 September 2017)
incapacity ill health cause and nature of lung disease undetermined at time of dismissal failure to determine same affected substantive and procedural fairness of dismissal despite employees inability to perform his current occupation at the time
[11] The arbitrator found that the employer had conceded in the arbitration that even though a post of a buyer was at a higher level (Maduma was employed at level P4 and the position of a buyer was level A3 which was one level higher), Maduma had previously acted in such a position (when he was working for another associated business unit) Maduma contended that he had never been made aware of vacancies available at the employer during the incapacity meetings. However, he believed he could perform the duties of a team assistant (a clerical post situated in the warehouse on the same post level occupied by Maduma at the time) or those of a receiving clerk. He saw no reason why an arrangement could not have been made to transfer him to an associated business unit of the Exarro Company in the same way that he had previously been transferred from another associated company to the applicant.
[16] In dealing with the procedural fairness of the dismissal the arbitrator found, in the absence of obtaining a final medical report,that the incapacity meetings convened by the employer were meaningless and it was merely going through the motions of conducting a proper procedure. As such, the employer had not complied with the code on incapacity hearings which provides that the employees prognosis and the extent to which the employee is capable of performing work should be discussed before dismissal is considered. Consequently, the arbitrator found the dismissal was also procedurally unfair.
General Motors (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Ruiters (2015) 36 ILJ 1493 (LAC)
[34]... In IMATU obo Strydom v Witzenberg Municipality & others, this court (per Molemela AJA, as she then was) stated:
[9] I am of the view that the provisions of items 10 and 11 are inextricably tied and thus non-compliance therewith would render a dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair.' [2]
[8] The aforementioned obligations of the employer as set out in items 10 and 11 of schedule 8 to the LRA are interrelated with similar obligations in the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. In their work Employment Equity Law (2001) 7-3 to 7-4, J L Pretorius et al submit that the duty of reasonable accommodation of employees by employers is not confined to the Employment Equity Act but "is a duty that is implied in the concept of unfair discrimination in a general sense" and "is one of the judicial and legislative tools for realising substantive equality". I agree with this submission. Surely non-compliance with such an important constitutional imperative would not only impact on procedural fairness but on the substantive fairness of the dismissal as well?
[7] I must mention that I have no doubt in my mind that permanent incapacity arising from ill-health or injury is recognized as a legitimate reason for terminating an employment relationship and thus an employer is not obliged to retain an employee who is permanently incapacitated if such employee's working circumstances or duties cannot be adapted. A dismissal would under such circumstances be fair, provided that it was predicated on a proper investigation into the extent of the incapacity, as well as a consideration of possible alternatives to dismissal.
JR929/15
Netshisaulu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR929/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 366 (28 September 2017)
commissioner misconstruing misconduct as gross negligence and upholding sanction of dismissal when employee guilty of ordinary negligence award reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order that dismissal unfair and employee reinstated on a written warning
[33] But in order for this to warrant dismissal, it would have to be determined that the applicant was grossly negligent, because negligence per se does not warrant dismissal[9] (just like insubordination per se and insolence does not[10]). In argument, Mr Ramdaw (who appeared for Eskom) submitted that ordinary negligence warrants dismissal, and undertook to provide me with authorities in support of this proposition. Having studied the list of authorities subsequently submitted by him, I am fortified in my view that only gross (or grave) negligence warrants dismissal.
Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet v Owners of The MV Stella Tingas and Another: MV Stella Tingas 2003 (2) SA 473 (SCA) at para 7.
It follows, I think, that to qualify as gross negligence the conduct in question must involve a departure from the standard of the reasonable person to such an extent that it may properly be categorised as extreme; it must demonstrate, where there is found to be conscious risk-taking, a complete obtuseness of mind or, where there is no conscious risk-taking, a total failure to take care. If something less were required, the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence would lose its validity.
Grogan Dismissal (2nd ed) at 246.
To warrant dismissal at first instance, negligence by an employee must be gross. Gross negligence may be said to have occurred if the employee is persistently negligent, or if the act of omission under consideration is particularly serious in itself. While in civil law the term gross negligence has a technical meaning, in employment law it can be taken to mean negligence that is particularly inexcusable.
JR2354/15
Steval Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Mphaphuli N.O, and Others (JR2354/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 358 (27 September 2017)
The commissioner found that the charge was that the applicant did not comply with the respondents instruction when in fact the opposite was true. He concluded that the charge had no basis in law. He added that even if the third respondent had committed the misconduct, the sanction of dismissal would have been inappropriate as the prescribed penalty in terms of the Site Specific Agreement was a final written warning. He found the dismissal substantively unfair.
In Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Lize Elizabeth Weideman[3] it was held that the consent to medical examination in a contract of employment does not constitute justification as contemplated in section 7 (1) of the EEA. The applicant did not establish that the award falls outside the bounds of reasonableness.
JR790/15
Van der Merwe v Shiba and Others (JR790/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 354 (27 September 2017)
Commissioners may find sanction harsher than the one prescribed in the disciplinary code appropriate when there is evidence justifying deviation from the prescribed sanction. Absent evidence, the commissioners decision that the harsher sanction is appropriate is unreasonable and defective
[7] It is common cause that disciplinary codes are guidelines and not cast in stone. It is further common cause that the third respondent differentiates between dishonesty and gross dishonesty. The former is punishable by a written warning and the latter by dismissal. It is further common cause that the applicant was dismissed for dishonesty. The commissioner was therefore required to determine whether the third respondents conduct of dismissing the applicant for dishonesty was fair. The applicant made himself guilty of dishonesty. The third respondent conceded that aggravating circumstances should exist before a sanction harsher than the one prescribed in its code could be justified. It was submitted on behalf of the third respondent that aggravating circumstances could be inferred from evidence.
Absent aggravating circumstances, the decision that the dishonesty led to an irretrievable breakdown of the employment relationship between the parties is unreasonable. The commissioner erred in finding the sanction of dismissal appropriate. His error had the effect of rendering his decision unreasonable. The application must, in the circumstances, succeed.
JA36/16
SACCAWU obo Mokebe and Others v Pick 'n Pay Retailers (JA36/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 345 (26 September 2017)
[52] The union, in the current matter, had obtained a certificate of outcome in terms of s64(1)(a) of the LRA and it had issued a strike notice in terms of s64(1)(b) thereof. This, in my view, rendered it fair and appropriate for the company to hold a disciplinary hearing where individual participation was allowed for primarily two reasons. The first was to ascertain each employees understanding of what the correct time of the commencement of the strike was. And the second was to establish whether he or she was knowingly complicit in the purported scheme to cause damage to the company. As it turns out, the company failed to adhere to the process that it specifically undertook to follow in the disciplinary notice which it issued to employees. This rendered each of the employees dismissals procedurally unfair.
Modise and Others v Steves Spar Blackheath [2000] 5 BLLR 496 (LAC)
The need for the respondent to hear the appellants was arguably even stronger in this case because this was a case where, to the knowledge of the respondent, certain steps had been taken by the union which were obviously aimed at making the strike a legal strike. The respondent should have realised that, because such attempts had been made, the strikers could well have been under the impression that the strike was legal and, that, for that reason, they might have believed that they were entitled to go on strike and even to ignore any calls by the respondent that they return to work. Although the appellants strike was illegal, they should not, in my judgement, be treated in the same way as strikers who simply flouted the Act and made no attempts whatsoever to comply with it. They deserve some sympathy. Workers must be encouraged to comply with the law. To treat them as if they fall into the same category as strikers who go on a strike without any attempt at all to make their strike legal would not be right. It would not encourage unions and workers to make whatever attempts they can to ensure that their strikes are legal.
The Court went on to hold that:[10]
The last observation relates to the conclusion that it would have been a pointless and an unnecessary exercise for the employer in G.M. Vincent to afford the strikers a hearing. My difficulty with this conclusion is that this was a case where the union had taken various steps prescribed by the old Act for making a strike legal... Indeed, it appears from the judgement of the industrial court in the same matter that, when the matter was argued in the industrial court, it was the unions case that it (and, a fortiori, the strikers) believed that the strike was legal (see NUMSA V G.M. Vincent Metal Sections (Pty) Ltd (1993) 14 ILJ 1318 (IC) at 1320J-1321A)... In those circumstances I cannot, with respect, see how it could be said that a hearing would have been a pointless and an unnecessary exercise in such a case.
JR2355/14
National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2355/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 359 (21 September 2017)
[22]In considering whether or not dismissal was an appropriate sanction, the arbitrator considered that the rule was introduced as a result of numerous fatalities at the mine and that it was an extraordinary measure taken by the CEO in an attempt to deal with a difficult situation and to prevent the loss of further lives. He found that a tip area that was not barricaded was dangerous as employees could fall into the opening and had the CEO known of the opening of the tip area, he could have intervened immediately and ordered that the area be secured without further delay. The employee was a safety officer and in light of the fatalities at the workplace, he did not act in the best interests of the employer at the time. The arbitrator accepted that the trust relationship has broken down and cannot be resuscitated.
JR1900/14
Sasol Synfuels v NBCCI and Others (JR1900/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 356 (20 September 2017)
[14] ...The only reasonable conclusion to be reached on the evidence is that the third respondent committed the act of misconduct with which he was charged, and that in terms of the applicable policy, dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The third respondent contravened a safety code and endangered the lives of two contractors. The award accordingly stands to be reviewed and set aside.
JS752/13
Rahn v Cheil South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS752/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 319 (5 September 2017)
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herchowitz and Others [2015] 36 ILJ 1511 (LAC) at para 22
. . . [A]cts of mere insolence and insubordination do not justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilful. The failure by an employee to comply with a reasonable and lawful instruction of an employer or an employees challenge to or defiance of the authority of the employer may justify dismissal, provided it is wilful (deliberate) and serious. Likewise, insolent or disrespectful conduct towards an employer will only justify dismissal if it is wilful and serious. The sanction of dismissal should be reserved for instances of gross insolence and gross insubordination as respect and obedience are implied duties of an employee under contract law, and any repudiation thereof will constitute a fundamental and calculated breach by the employee to obey and respect the employers lawful authority over him or her.
JR1756/2015
Arcelor Mittal SA Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1756/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 295 (11 August 2017)
Ultimately, the evidence clearly shows that the third respondent did everything in his powers to evade a fight. The second respondent seems to have correctly understood the fundament rules of evidence including the principles governing mitigation and probabilities.
JR1289/14
LTE Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR1289/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 291; [2017] 12 BLLR 1259 (LC) ; (2017) 38 ILJ 2787 (LC) (8 August 2017)
Employee misrepresenting qualifications in CV commissioners finding that employees dismissal substantively unfair unreasonable award set aside on review employees dismissal determined as having been fair
Department of Home Affairs & another v Ndlovu & others (2014) 35 ILJ 3340 (LAC)
In any event, accepting that such a qualification was not a requirement for the job, this does not detract from the employees dishonesty in misrepresenting that he was a chartered accountant.
G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero NO & others(2017) 38ILJ881 (LAC)
[30] The false misrepresentation made by the third respondent was blatantly dishonest in circumstances in which the appellant is entitled as an operational imperative to rely on honesty and full disclosure by its potential employees. It induced employment and when discovered was met with an absence of remorse on the part of the third respondent. The fact that a lengthy period had elapsed since the misrepresentation, during which time the third respondent had rendered long service without disciplinary infraction, while a relevant consideration, does not compel a different result. This is so in that the fact that dishonesty has been concealed for an extended period does not in itself negate the seriousness of the misconduct or justify its different treatment. To find differently would send the wrong message.
JR967/14
Cashbuild Thohoyandou v Mannde NO and Others (JR967/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 284 (8 August 2017)
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herchowitz and Others [2015] 36 ILJ 1511 (LAC)at para 22
Even so, it is however trite that acts of insolence and insubordination do not automatically justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilfu
DA08/16
Workforce Group v McLintock and Others (DA08/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 272 (1 August 2017)
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2008) 29 ILJ 2581 (LAC); See also Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others 2009 (3) SA 493 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 829 (SCA); Absa Bank Ltd v Naidu & others (2015) 36 ILJ 602 (LAC); Miyambo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2010) 31 ILJ 2031 (LAC)
Standard Bank of SA Ltd v CCMA and Others (1998) 19 ILJ 903 (LC) at 913 para 38.
It is one of the fundamentals of the employment relationship that the employer should be able to place trust in the employee. A breach of this trust in the form of conduct involving dishonesty is one that goes to the heart of the employment relationship and is destructive of it.
JR1671/16
Kellogg Company South Africa Proprietary Limited v Food and Allied Workers Union obo Khumalo and Others (JR1671/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 268 (6 July 2017)
The Constitutional Court in the matter of Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC).
The absence of dishonesty is a significant factor in favour of the application of progressive discipline rather than dismissal.[11] (Own emphasis)
In the respect of the absence of dishonesty, the Labour Appeal Court found that the Commissioners statement in this regard baffling. In my view, the Commissioner cannot be faulted for considering the absence of dishonesty a relevant fact in relation to the misconduct. However, the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that relationship of trust may have not been breached. Mr Sidumo was employed to protect the mine valuable property which he did not do. However, this is not the end of the enquiry. It is still necessary to weigh all the relevant factors together in light of the seriousness of the breach.
JS318/13
National Union of Mine Workers obo Shayi and Others v Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Ltd (JS318/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 271 (30 June 2017)
[18] It is trite that in dismissal proceedings, the onus rests with the employees to establish and prove that they were dismissed. On the other hand, the employer has to demonstrate and/or show that the dismissal was fair. In general, this means that the Applicants must prove that the Respondent has taken some initiative to terminate the contract, and that the Respondents action has caused the termination.
Ouwehand v Hout Bay Fishing Industries [2004] 8 BLLR 815 (LC); See also CWIU v Johnson and Johnson (Pty) Ltd [1997] 9 BLLR 1186 (LC)
JR696/15
Bidvest Food Services (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others (JR696/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 210 (31 May 2017)
dismissal of the Third Respondents was substantively and procedurally fair.
JR759/12
Mphahlele v Coreslab (JR759/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 130 (12 April 2017)
was at the time sitting with a final written warning for a similar misconduct...order that the dismissal was fair.
JR557/14
Wadeville Secure (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR557/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 85 (3 March 2017)
matter is remitted to the first respondent to be heardde novo
JR2684/13
Sibanye Gold Ltd (Driefontein Mine) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2684/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 191 (1 March 2017)
respondents dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
JR438/13
Bader SA (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR438/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 550 (20 December 2016)
[16]As I have already said, where an element of dishonesty is attached to a particular act of misconduct (in this case insubordination), it goes to the heart of the employment relationship. The question then in these circumstances is whether the trust element essential for any employment contract to endure, has been irretrievably breached.
JR1907/14
Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUM obo Mtshwene and Others (JR1907/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 567 (1 December 2016)
Negligence with aggravating circumstances in that you failed to ensure the proper installation of the refractory lining, resulting in the company losing substantially on finance and production...employee is by far the senior employee between the two and was ultimately responsible and liable for the work performed by his subordinates.
JR261/13
Ngululu Bulk Carriers (Pty) Limited v SATAWU and Others (JR261/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 440 (29 November 2016)
A wilful refusal to carry out a proper assignment for which the employee was employed for
Second Respondent's dismissal was fair
J768/15
Minister of Finance v Bredenkamp and Others (J768/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 431 (11 November 2016)
this should be regarded as serious misconduct.This was a deliberate assault by a senior on a subordinate, aggravated by the circumstances in which it took place.
C420/2015
IMATU obo Cupido v City of Cape Town and Others (C420/2015) [2016] ZALCJHB 421 (2 November 2016)
JR286/15
Diesel Supply and Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Skhosana and Others (JR286/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 525 (14 October 2016)
the arbitrators finding that the applicant had failed to call medical expert evidence, I fail to appreciate, in circumstances where the authenticity of the test and its use in the industry was never seriously disputed by the employees representative, how such a finding can be made. To the extent that the arbitrators finding is based on his intervention when he asked Muller why the employer not been sent to a medical facility, that question had as its purpose the ability for medical experts to test for a whole range of drugs. Given that the integrity of the test administered had not been called into question and that the test itself was capable of testing for the presence of a number of other drugs (which was never disputed) there is no basis on which the arbitrator could reasonably rely on make a finding he did.
JR241/14
Bokoni Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR241/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 524 (6 October 2016)
Was not as a result of illegal strike.
[12]The sanction of dismissal was unfair because the conduct of the employee persisted for a considerable time reporting late for work, with the applicant not doing anything about it. On its own version the applicant kept giving the applicant verbal counselling regarding the issues of time keeping. If indeed late coming was regarded as a serious offence the applicant ought to have warned the employee about the alleged misconduct and the possible consequences that was likely to follow. If indeed the situation had become unreasonable from the side of the applicant it ought at least to have placed him on terms by issuing a written warning. This is in essence what the Commissioner means when he says the applicant never applied progressive discipline.
JR1303/2014
Imagex (Pty) Ltd v Krustinsky and Others (JR1303/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 371 (29 September 2016)
Plane Engineering (PTY) Ltd v Ncobo & others (2014) 35 ILJ 1971 (LAC).
even though less onerous reasons can be accepted for dismissing a probationary employee, the fairness of such reasons still needs to be tested against stipulations of items 8(1) (a)-(h) of the code of Good Practice.
JS787/14
Smith v Kit kat Group (Pty) Ltd (JS787/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 362; [2016] 12 BLLR 1239 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 483 (LC) (23 September 2016)
Failing to allow the applicant to return to work, in the circumstances of this matter, is tantamount to termination of employment.
[53]In summary, and based on what I have set out above, I have little hesitation in concluding that the conduct of the respondent, considered as a whole, was of the nature that seeks to bring about the termination of the employment relationship, and is certainly a repudiation of the employment contract of the applicant. This conduct includes representing to the applicant that he was welcome to return to work when this was in reality not the case, refusing his tender of work when it was first made, seeking to persuade him to pursue a disability claim, telling him that he is cosmetically unacceptable and his presence traumatizes the other employees, informing him that he unable to do his full work without conducting any process to determine this, and suggesting that he leave whilst ignoring the medical reports that the applicant was fit to work, and finally seeking to negotiate his exit. The applicant was entitled to consider the employment relationship as terminated, which he ultimately did by the time this matter came to trial.
Trio Glass t/a The Glass Group v Molapo NO and Others (2013) 34 ILJ 2662 (LC) at para 36. See also Ismail v B & B t/a Harvey World Travel Northcliff (2014) 35 ILJ 696 (LC) at paras 27 28.
the Court dealt with a situation where an employee on the evidence was never informed that she had been dismissed, and said: by definition the existence of a dismissal can be established by conduct. An objective assessment of the evidence must be made in order to establish whether the conduct of the employer is such as to establish a termination of the employment contract, be it with or without notice.
Ouwehand v Hout Bay Fishing Industries (2004) 25 ILJ 731 (LC) at para 14
Section 186(1)(a): This formulation would appear to contemplate that the employer party to the contract of employment undertakes an action that leads to the termination. In other words, some initiative undertaken by the employer must be established, which has the consequence of terminating the contract, whether or not the employer has given notice of an intention to do so.'
Marneweck v SEESA Ltd (2009) 30 ILJ 2745 (LC) at para 31.
as a matter of principle, an employment contract can be regarded as terminated based on the objective construction of the employer's conduct which unequivocally repudiates the contract.
Heath v A & N Paneelkloppers (2015) 36 ILJ 1301 (LC) at para 31.
[15] Where the employer conducts itself in such a fashion that has the cause of bringing the employment relationship to an end, it must equally be considered to be a dismissal.[16] the question to answer is whether there were some overt actions by the respondent as employer that were the proximate cause of such termination of employment of the applicant on 1 February 2012. The applicant has the onus to show this. In answering this question, regard must not just be had to what happened on that day, but all the circumstances leading up to the events on that day must also be considered. In short, did the respondent seek to repudiate the employment contract
JR999/2014
Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v Pretorius and Others (JR999/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 351 (14 September 2016)
Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank and others (2002) 23 ILJ 1243 (LAC).
Dishonesty entails a lack of integrity or straightforwardness and, in particular, a willingness to steal, cheat, lie or act fraudulently.(See Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and others (2000) 21 ILJ 340 (LAC) at 345F-H; R v Brown 1908 TS 21; R v White 1968 (3) SA 556 (RA); Ex parte Bennett 1978 (2) SA 380 (W) at 383H-384C; S v Manqina; S v Madinda 1996 (1) SACR 258 (E) at 260e-h and The Oxford Dictionary.)In the Canadian case of Lynch and Co v United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co [1971] 1 OR 28 (Ont SC) at 37-38, the following was said (per Fraser J):"Dishonest" is normally used to describe an act where there has been some intent to deceive or cheat. To use it to describe acts which are merely reckless, disobedient or foolish is not in accordance with popular usage or the dictionary meaning.'Certainly, insofar as the appellant or its customers are concerned, no intention to steal, cheat, lie or act fraudulently is manifest. And what of the intention to conceal the true state of affairs from the management of the airport? That is not covered by the charge.
44]The Court further held that dishonesty implies intention on the part of the employee and negligence cannot give rise to a charge of dishonesty.
JR859/2013
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v PSA obo Mahlangu and Others (JR859/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 350 (14 September 2016)
to place an employee who was guilty of dishonesty back in a position where honesty and integrity were paramount, would be outrageous and would amount to condoning his misconduct.
JR2600/13
Maloka v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2600/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 343 (31 August 2016)
Bringing SARS name into disrepute, conduct he was involved impacted on SARS name and reputation. ..not a requirement for the purposes of the charge in question for the Applicant to have made a public statement or issued a statement about SARSs activities, nor was it necessary for evidence to be led to demonstrate that indeed a conviction resulted from the conduct in question. This narrow interpretation of the charge of bringing a companys name into disrepute in circumstances where an employee commits misconduct outside of working hours cannot be sustainable in the light of the above authorities and principles set out therein. The Applicants mere conduct in this case, considering the nature of his job and the business of SARS was sufficient for the charge to be sustained.
his conduct showed that he intended to involve himself in illegal activities by participating in rhino horn trading...t needs to be added that the conduct of the Applicant, but for the fact that the horn turned out to be that of a cow, bordered on criminality and involved dishonesty and corruption. Such conduct clearly had an impact on the employment relationship, especially in the light of his position as a law enforcement officer. Even more profound in this case was the Applicants dishonesty throughout the arbitration proceedings, with contrived and improbable versions, intended to mislead the Commissioner.
Dolo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 905 (LC) at paragraph [19]
1. Where misconduct does not fall within the express terms of a disciplinary code, the misconduct may still be of such a nature that the employer may none the less be entitled to discipline the employee. Likewise the fact that the misconduct complained of occurred away from the work-place would not necessarily preclude the employer from disciplining the employee in respect thereof... In our view the competence of an employer to discipline an employee for misconduct not covered in a disciplinary code depends on a multi-faceted factual enquiry. This enquiry would include but would not be limited to the nature of the misconduct, the nature of the work performed by the employee, the employer's size, the nature and size of the employer's work-force, the position which the employer occupies in the market place and its profile therein, the nature of the work or services performed by the employer, the relationship between the employee and the victim, the impact of the misconduct on the work-force as a whole, as well as on the relationship between employer and employee and the capacity of the employee to perform his job. At the end of the enquiry what would have to be determined is if the employee's misconduct 'had the effect of destroying, or of seriously damaging, the relationship of employer and employee between the parties'. (Authorities omitted)
The applicant contends she committed no wrong against her employer. This is correct: her involvement in the fraudulent scheme did not concern any non-performance of her duties or other act of misconduct in the workplace. However, being a party to such a scheme held implications for her suitability to occupy a position in which she was entrusted to deal with the employers cash when her job required it. The first principle a person who is determining whether or not a dismissal for misconduct is unfair must consider in terms of Item 7(a) of the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal is whether or not the employee contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace (emphasis added). What the emphasized portion makes clear, is that misconduct outside the workplace and outside of working hours may have a bearing on an employees continued suitability for employment. In each instance, a multiplicity of factual considerations can determine whether the employees conduct outside the workplace holds implications for their continued suitability for employment or some form of corrective discipline. In Hoechst (PTY) Ltd v Chemical Workers Industrial Union & Another (1993) 14 ILJ 1449 (LAC), Joffe JA (as he then was), held:
SAMWU obo Felicia v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2195/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 338 (26 August 2016)
meeting in which her performance was to be discussed
"a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction or where the conduct of an employee poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to the employer's authority."
Polyoak Packaging (Pty) Ltd v Siquibo NO and Others (unreported) case number 236/2008
[c] the reasonableness of an order should be beyond reproach and will be enquired into: in cases before the court the order or request has sometimes been found to be reasonable and at other times to be unreasonable. In addition, it is required . . . that the refusal to obey must have been serious enough to warrant dismissal.
Grogan, in Employment Law, [J Grogan Workplace: Juta (11th edition) at pages 251-255.] states the following
The best measure of the gravity of insubordination and/or 'insolence' is the effect it has on the employment relationship. Other things being equal, an isolated refusal to carry out an instruction is less likely to destroy the relationship between the employer and the employee than sustained and deliberate defiance of authority. The latter form of insubordination is well illustrated by Theewaterskloof Municipality v SALGBC (Western Cape Division). The Labour Court held that a senior manager who accepted payment of an allowance well knowing that he was not entitled to it, then offered to repay the amounts in derisory instalments, had deliberately breached the trust relationship. Given the destruction of the employment relationship and his total lack of remorse, the employee could not rely on either the general right to progressive discipline or on his long and previously unblemished service record. The court upheld the employee's dismissal.
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others (2015) 5 BLLR 484 (LAC) at para 19
The Labour Appeal Court held that [t]he offence of insubordination in the workplace has, in this regard, been described by the courts as a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction or where the conduct of an employee poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to an employers' authority and in that regard, the Labour Appeal Court referred to the decision of Commercial Catering and Allied Workers' Union of SA and Another v Wooltru Ltd t/a Woolworths (Randburg) (1989) 10 ILJ 311 (IC) at 314H-J.
Commercial Catering & Allied Workers Union of SA and Another v Wooltru Ltd t/a Woolworths (Randburg) (1989) 10 ILJ 311 (IC
"the offence of insubordination is constituted by the following: When the employee refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable command or request and the refusal is wilful and serious (wilful disobedience), or when the employee's conduct poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to the employer's authority
[b] it is required that the order must be lawful; an employee is therefore not expected to obey an unlawful order such as to work illegal overtime; and thirdly,
[a] it should be evident that an order, which may even be in the form of a warning, must in fact have been given. . . . In the second place;
As a general principle it may be stated that the breach of rules laid down by an employer or the refusal to obey an employer's lawful and reasonable order is to be viewed in a serious light and may in given circumstances even justify summary dismissal. However, the presence of certain prerequisites is required. In the first place:
JR672/15
Wood Group (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Ngobeni N.O. and Another (JR672/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 321 (23 August 2016)
Termination of contract: "In line with the Temporary Employment Contract entered into, we are accordingly terminating your services with LBJ Global Recruitment (Pty) Ltd[2] on the same date, to be viewed as completion of contract. In the interim, we will endeavour to secure an alternative assignment for you and will communicate with you should we be successful in this regard.
NUMSA v Abancedisi Labour Services [2014] 2 All SA 43 (SCA); [2013] 12 BLLR 1185 (SCA).
n that case, a labour brokers client refused the workers entry to the workplace. The labour broker argued that it had not dismissed them. The SCA held that they were dismissed when they were barred from the workplace by the client and that the labour broker had dismissed them as contemplated in s 186(1)(a) of the LRA.
JR2946/2010, J494/13
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited (IDC) v Roscher and Others (JR2946/2010, J494/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 292 (2 August 2016)
Absa Bank Ltd v Naidu and Others [2015] 1 BLLR 1 (LAC) at paras 42-56.
It was one of the fundamentals of the employment relationship that the employer should be able to place trust in the employee A breach of this trust in the form of conduct involving dishonesty is one that goes to the heart of the employment relationship and is destructive of it.
[T]his Court has consistently followed an approach, laid out early in the jurisprudence of the Labour Court in Standard Bank SA Limited v CCMA and others [1998] 6 BLLR 622 (LC) at paragraphs 3841 where Tip AJ said:
[55] On the issue of breakdown in trust relationship, occasioned by an employees dishonest misconduct, this Court (per Davis JA) in Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and others, stated the following:
[53] In De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd, above, the Court further pointed out that [t]he seriousness of dishonesty ie whether it can be stigmatised as gross or not depends not only, or even mainly, on the act of dishonesty itself but on the way in which it impacts on the employers business. In the present instance, considering the nature of the appellants business, there can be no doubt, in my view, that Ms Naidus dishonesty severely adversely impacted on the business.
J1343/16
Solidarity and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation (J1343/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 273; 2016 (6) SA 73 (LC); (2016) 37 ILJ 2888 (LC); [2017] 1 BLLR 60 (LC) (26 July 2016)
unlawful summary dismissal, dismissals in breach of contractual right to disciplinary procedure and in breach of right to freedom of expression, dismissals void ab initio
to dismiss SABC journalists for criticising the Protest Policy and in suspending them, amounts to conduct by SABC management which is plainly in breach of section 16(1) of the Constitution, and it is conduct in respect of which the Labour Court, in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court under s157(2) of the LRA, can make an appropriate order in terms of s 158(1).
JR232/2013
Modiba v Samancor Eastern Chrome Mine and Others (JR232/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 275 (22 July 2016)
reliability of the equipment used to test the presence of cannabis
Commissioner failed to appreciate the incidence of onus in relation to the authenticity of the test and reliability of the equipment
JR 1099/13
South African Municipali Workers Union and Another v Ngaka Modiri Molema District and Others (JR 1099/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 257; (2016) 37 ILJ 2430 (LC) (7 July 2016)
commissioner (not having) license to craft a charge that will justify a dismissal.
JR1022/12
NUMSA and Another v Rafee N.O. and Others (JR1022/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 512; [2017] 2 BLLR 146 (LC) (31 May 2016)
failure to delete photos of the company from his mobile phone
[13]The applicants rightly contend that in the employment context, the competing interests of employees rights to privacy have to be weighed against the employers right to protect its business interests.
JR2720/13
Freshmark (Pty) Ltd v Matji N.O. and Others (JR2720/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 477 (20 May 2016)
the probabilities are overwhelming that the employee simply failed to exercise his supervisory obligations and that the pallet of fresh produce was returned to Centurion as a consequence, at a loss to the applicant. In both instances, there is no evidence on record that serves to exculpate the employee on the basis of the inconsistent application of discipline.
JR1025/2013
Masemola v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1025/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 183 (17 May 2016)
sexual favour in exchange for the Applicant deleting nude pictures
Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers and Others (2016) 1 BLLR 1 (LAC).
JR1172/14
Browns the Diamond Store v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1172/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 187 (13 May 2016)
[14]However, the reference to a possible conflict of interest inPhillipscase must be understood in the context in which it is used. It refers to a situation where a person owing a fiduciary duty to another, in this case an employer, actually does act in their own interest in circumstances in which their interest might possibly conflict with that of their principal, but does not disclose the possible conflict of interest to the person to whom the fiduciary duty is owed before embarking on such action, or does so without that persons permission. The breach of the fiduciary duty does not occur because of the mere existence of a possible conflict but how the potentially conflicted individual acts when that situation arises.
Phillips v Fieldstone Africa (Pty) Ltd and another 2004(3) SA 459
which an employee accepted an offer of shares in a client of his employer without advising his employer or obtaining its consent, which the court held amounted to him succumbing to the potential conflict of interest between his duty and his self-interest. It was also suggested that the mere possibility of a conflict of interest was sufficient to warrant the employer taking action, on the strength of the authority of that case. In enumerating what might constitute a conflict of interest, the SCA held It extends not only to actual conflicts of interest but also to those which are a real sensible possibility.
JR3104/12
National Nuclear Regulator v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR3104/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 177 (11 May 2016)
[105] It is clear that an employee who demonstrates a propensity for committing misconduct cannot escape the consequences of his or her conduct simply because a past warning has expired. Disciplinary action under theLabour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended, (LRA) is not a rigid process which fails to take into account the various parties interests.
National Union of Mineworkers obo Selemela v Northam Platinum Ltd (2013) 34 ILJ 3118 (LAC) at para 38; Gcwensha v CCMA and Others [2006] 3 BLLR 234 (LAC).
An employer or commissioner is always entitled to take into account the cumulative effect of previous acts of negligence, inefficiency and/misconduct. To do otherwise would be to subject and employer to the duty to continue employing a worker who regularly commits a series of transgressions at suitable intervals, failing outside the periods of applicability of final written warnings.The court found further that the final written warning will have added importance if the conduct to which it relates is of the same nature as the conduct the employee is subsequently charged with in the disciplinary enquiry.
CA2/2015
G4S Secure Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero N.O. and Others (CA2/2015) [2016] ZALAC 55; (2017) 38 ILJ 881 (LAC) (25 November 2016)
Third respondent dismissed after 14 years service as security guard after it was discovered he failed to disclose his prior criminal convictions for rape and assault when applying for employment
Given the serious nature of the misconduct committed, the sanction of dismissal was fair. Appeal upheld with no order as to costs.
CA16/15
TFD Network Africa (Pty) Ltd v Singh N.O. and Others (CA16/15) [2016] ZALAC 50; [2017] 4 BLLR 377 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1119 (LAC) (8 November 2016)
Where the protective measures are not available to an employee required to perform night work, the employee is entitled to raise the absence of those measure as a defence to a charge of failing to work or disobeying an instruction.
Transnet Freight Rail v Transnet Bargaining Council and others (2011) 32 ILJ 1766 (LC).
An employee on a final warning for the same offence will normally be regarded as irredeemable, and dismissal will be justified if the employee commits a similar offence during the currency of the warning Usually, the presence of a valid final written warning at the time the commission of the same or similar form of misconduct should be properly interpreted as aggravating in nature. The principles of progressive discipline require such a re-offending employee usually to be considered irredeemable I accept that the purpose of the warning is to impress upon the employee seriousness of his actions as well as the possible future consequences which might ensue if he misbehaves again.
JA83/2015
Sylvania Metals (Pty) Ltd v Mello N.O. and Others (JA83/2015) [2016] ZALAC 52 (22 November 2016)
[17]Insubordination in the workplace context generally refers to the disregard of an employers authority or lawful and reasonable instructions.[5]It occurs when an employee refuses to accept the authority of a person in a position of authority over him or her and, as such, is misconduct because it assumes a calculated breach by the employee of the obligation to adhere to and comply with the employers lawful authority.[6]It includes a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to adhere to a lawful and reasonable instruction of the employer, as well as conduct which poses a deliberate and serious challenge to the employers authority even where an instruction has not been given.[7]
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others (2015) 36 ILJ 1511 (L.
Insolence: is offensive, disrespectful in speech or behaviour, impudent, cheeky, rude, insulting or contemptuous. While the Court noted that insolence may become insubordination where there is an outright challenge to the employers authority, acts of mere insolence and insubordination do not justify dismissal unless they are serious and wilful
JA45/2015
Dikobe v Mouton N.O. and Others (JA45/2015) [2016] ZALAC 30; [2016] 9 BLLR 902 (LAC); (2016) 37 ILJ 2285 (LAC) (15 June 2016)
The vagueness of a rule against possession
[19]The defence of the appellant, throughout all the proceedings, was that his possession of the vouchers was with Moloros express permission. The word possession is of course the word that a layman would use to describe thehandlingof the vouchers. Were the appellant aware of the term detentio, he would probably have denied being in possession and claimed he merely detained the vouchers as agent of Moloro.
JA38/15
Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (JA38/15) [2016] ZALAC 41; (2016) 37 ILJ 2831 (LAC); [2017] 2 BLLR 137 (LAC) (27 July 2016)
The arbitrator (incorrectly) found that the dismissal of the employee was substantively unfair on the basis that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh under the circumstances. The arbitrator also found that the employees till takings discrepancy was not the result of any negligence on her part because the appellant could not find irregularities on the transactions of the employee.
JA119/14
Barloworld Logistics v Ledwaba N.O. and Others (JA119/14) [2016] ZALAC 17 (11 May 2016)
conducting a business without permission
no evidence led that employee conducting business using employers time and resources employee obtaining verbal permission from immediate superior
Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe and Others [2000] 3BLLR 243 (LAC)
the fact of long service in employment does not always spare an employee, who committed a gross misconduct, from dismissal
CA13 /14
City of Cape Town v Freddie and Others (CA13 /14) [2016] ZALAC 8; [2016] 6 BLLR 568 (LAC); (2016) 37 ILJ 1364 (LAC) (15 March 2016)
Racism
without any justifiable cause, as being even [worse] than Verwoerdwas an offensive racial insult,
SACWU and Another v NCP Chlorchem (Pty) Ltd and Others(2007) 28 ILJ 1308 (LC) at para 31; [2007] JOL 19526 (LC)
JA78/14
Metsimaholo Local Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JA78/14) [2016] ZALAC 1; [2016] 5 BLLR 435 (LAC) (3 February 2016)
moonlighting
the collective agreement, which was relied upon by the appellant, does not outlaw moonlighting. It expressly provides that employees had to apply for permission to do private work and it states that such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld.
JR251/2011
Klaas and Another v Eskom Holdings Ltd and Others (JR251/2011) [2016] ZALCJHB 152 (19 April 2016)
Negligence in that it was alleged that he was negligent in the supervision of an apprentice under his charge, which resulted in a contact incident, which in turn resulted in a fatality.
I agree with her findings that the severe consequences of First Applicants lack of care broke the trust relationship and that the sanction of dismissal was indeed the appropriate one.
JR64/2014
IBM South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration (CCMA) and Others (JR64/2014) [2016] ZALCJHB 151 (19 April 2016)
The employer has the right to test the employee in different situations and determine whether she is capable of coping with the rigours of permanent employment. If a probationary employee is found to be wanting on key aspects of the job description the employer is at liberty to follow its instincts and not appoint the employee permanently. These important but often intangible considerations are inherent in the context of less compelling reasons...The Court held that when dealing with a person on probation in a responsible position like a professional assistant, where the person claims to have the necessary experience to do the job, it is not unreasonable for the employer to simply point out the perceived shortcoming of the probationer and to emphasize the importance of improving her performance if she wants to be permanently employed.
Rheinmetall Denel Munition (Pty)(Ltd) v National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry and others (2015) 36 ILJ 2117 (LC).
The Arbitrator failed to adopt a holistic approach to the large body of evidence before her and failed to consider and place the Third Respondents performance and behaviour during her probationary period in its proper context. This Court dealt with the distinction to be drawn between a probationary employee appointed to a responsible position and a junior employee on probation
JR2195/14
SAMWU obo LUNGILE FELICIA vs CCMA
Distinguished between insolence (repudiation by an employee of his duty to show respect) and insubordination (refusal to obey an employer's instructions). Both forms of misconduct are properly embraced by the terms of 'insubordination' as used in Schedule 8 Code of practice: dismissal in the Labour Relations Act of 1995 ("the Code of good practice").
Palluci Home Depot (Pty) Ltd v Herskowitz and Others (2015) 5 BLLR 484 (LAC) at para 19.
[t]he offence of insubordination in the workplace has, in this regard, been described by the courts as a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction or where the conduct of an employee poses a deliberate (wilful) and serious challenge to an employers' authority.
Commercial Catering and Allied Workers' Union of SA and Another v Wooltru Ltd t/a Woolworths (Randburg) (1989) 10 ILJ 311 (IC) at 314H-J.
JR2630/12
NUM obo Mogashoa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2630/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 62 (23 February 2016)
Dishonest conduct in that you must have been aware or noticed that 17 kg of gold was hidden: Applicant was at the very least probably aware of the concealment of the gold in the weights which most probably occurred when they were working on the weights that Sunday. Even if he was merely a bystander, his silence in not reporting the concealment of the gold made him complicit with the boilermaker who was dismissed arising from the incident. The strong circumstantial evidence against him was such that he needed to provide a plausible explanation why, notwithstanding that evidence, he was not a participant or would not have been aware of what was going on despite working together with the boiler-maker that day in the small workshop.
JR2744/11
MCC Group of Companies v Mokabane N.O and Others (JR2744/11) [2016] ZALCJHB 234 (10 February 2016)
The
JR130/14
Rustenburg Platinum Mine v SAEWA obo Bester and Others (JR130/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 75 (26 January 2016)
Court: [23] In the present instance, there is no conceivable reason why race might justifiably have served as an identifier...Bester was not, as the commissioner suggested, benignly referring to a physical attribute in order to identify a certain person. Besters reference to Thomelang as a swartman was derogatory and racist.
CCMA Award: "I really do not see how such a phrase (referring to a physical attribute in order to identify certain person) could be classified as a racial remark. It would be similar to the situation where someone comes into the CCMA offices not knowing my name and then asking for me by stating the wit man who for instance parked next to the entrance gate."
At the core of these decisions is the decisive break that the Constitution represent from a past in which racism was institutionalised and legitimised (seeS v Makwanyane & another[1995] ZACC 3;1995 (3) SA 391(CC)) and that racism in the workplace is not to be tolerated. In the course of her judgment, Gaibie AJ found that an utterance by an employee to the effect that we need to get rid of the whites was clearly and unequivocally racist in nature. To the extent that the employee dismissed for making this utterance had contended that the words ought necessary to be viewed in the context in which they were used, Gaibie AJ said the following, at paragraph 29 of her judgment: I disagree with this proposition. Words have their own meaning and do not necessarily require a context within which to acquire meaning. Depending on the words used, there may however be circumstances in which words may acquire a different meaning. I do not believe that the racist slur uttered by Ramepadi requires a context for the purposes of interpretation. Their plain meaning indicates racism. What the Modikwa Mining judgment (and many others) demonstrate is that despite the formal dismantling of institutional apartheid, issues of race and racism remain prevalent in South African workplaces. The use of racial identifiers plays an obvious role in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes. The concept of race, as a social construct, continues to be imbued with ideological baggage and can serve the purposes of subjugation, where particular race groups continue to be viewed as other.
Modikwa Mining Personnel Services(2013) 34 ILJ 373 (LC)
(see, for example,Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry v Kapp & others(2002) 23 ILJ 863 (LAC),Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd v Hill(1998) 19 ILJ 1112 (LAC))
Campbell Scientific Africa (Pty) Ltd v Simmers & others(CA 14/2014, 23 October 2015)
in the context of a case concerning remarks of a sexual nature made to a woman employee, the use of derogatory and demeaning remarks are concerned with power relations and serve to create a work environment where the right to dignity of employees is impaired, and barriers to substantive equality reinforced.
JR2493/2012
Engen Stargan (Pty) Ltd t/a Kroonvaal 1 Stop v NUMSA obo Ntoahae and Others (JR2493/2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 395 (13 November 2015)
It is clear to me that whatever rule was in place, it was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I take note of the employees argument that, apart from Du Toits say-so, there was no clear evidence of a breakdown of the trust relationship between the parties and also, that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances
JR715/13
Pick 'n Pay Hypermaeket v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR715/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 393 (12 November 2015)
[17] On the question of substituting relief, I am satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the third respondent probably did admit to hiding the laptop in a fridge, and that the most probable reason for doing so was to remove it at a later stage. Accordingly, he was guilty of the misconduct he was charged with and dismissal was not an inappropriate sanction given the gross dishonesty involved, irrespective of the other mitigating factors. Such conduct is inherently destructive of the trust relationship.
JR2711/12
Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2711/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 385 (6 November 2015)
Consumption of food items. Employee tried to deceive the Commission by attempting to introduce false evidence and showing no remorse. Dismissal fair.
JR2525/11
Emfuleni Local Municipality v SALGBC and Others (JR2525/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 356 (14 October 2015)
At most, the employee created a hint of doubt and the remote possibility that some other person committed the offence. But this was not sufficient in light of the standard of proof applicable in labour disputes. In Potgietersrus Platinum Ltd v CCMA and Others[3], the Court held that an arbitrator incorrectly applied the required standard of proof. The arbitrator accepted the remote possibility that persons other than the accused employee had committed the offence, thus superseding the greater probability that the employees had committed the offence.
Evidence constitutes a prima facie case of dishonesty against the employee. This then shifts the evidentiary burden to the employee. In the absence of a credible and probable explanation from the employee, the inference that the arbitrator can most reasonably draw is that the employee acted dishonestly and that the employer has discharged its onus.
JR483/13
Metrorail (PRASA) v SATAWU obo Tshabalala and Others (JR483/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 422 (5 October 2015)
Miyambo v CCMA and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 2031 (LAC) at para 13
JR2986/2010B
Devel Switchboards (Pty) Ltd v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR2986/2010B) [2015] ZALCJHB 254 (7 August 2015)
Kalik v Truworths (Gateway) & Others [2008] 1 BLLR 45 (LC) at [27].
[27] An employment relationship broken down as a result of an act of dishonesty can never be restored by whatever amount of mitigation. The underlying reason for this approach is that an employer cannot be expected to keep dishonest workers in his/her employ. The other reason for this is to send an unequivocal message to other employees that dishonesty will not be tolerated The rational for this approach are also informed by the consideration that a worker with an unblemished record cannot after an incident relating to an act of dishonesty, continue to be trusted. It is the operational risk to the business of an employer that arises from the dishonest conduct, which cancels off whatever good record the worker may have had before the commission of the offence. In other words there would be no purpose in conducting an inquiry into mitigating circumstances where a worker is guilty of misconduct relating to dishonesty. However, this approach would not apply in cases involving other forms of misconduct.
The factors to be considered would in my view be where the failure to intervene would lead to grave injustice or where justice might be attained by other means.
JR1685/12
Massbuild (Pty) Ltd t/a Builders Warehouse v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR1685/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 234 (4 August 2015)
Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2011) 32 ILJ 2455 (LAC) at para 34
Where an employee is found in unauthorised possession of company property, the evidentiary burden shifts to him to justify such misconduct.
Fawu & Others v ABI and the SCA decision in Chauke & Others v Lee Service Centre t/a Lesson Motors.
Told her that the company was no good and that she had made a mistake in joining it. The secret recording of interactions with the firm in the course of the process, was also not bona fide.
In the event the court reduced the compensation of four months remuneration it would have awarded, by half on account of her underhand conduct during the formal consultation process.
Cashiers, cash was short to the extent of their cash floats.
Show signs of tampering. Not every irregularity would vitiate the entire award: the reasonableness of the arbitration award had to be assessed in the light of the totality of the evidence presented at the arbitration. The possibility that the store administrator could be responsible for the shortfalls was less persuasive given that there was uncontested evidence that a drop procedure had to be followed when dropping the bags.
Viewing of pornographic material, give him a final written warning.
Implied term did not extend to include the right of an employer to substitute its own sanction for that of the chairperson, particularly in a situation where the parties to a collective agreement had elected expressly to confer on the disciplinary chairperson the sole power to impose the final sanction.
Dismissal was substantively fair. The employee was awarded 12 months remuneration as compensation for his procedurally unfair dismissal.
(C683/11) [2015] ZALCCT 14
South African Revenue Service v CCMA
Was no need for a permit to adjust the blower valve as there was no proof that a policy existed to this effect and furthermore that if there had been need for a permit.
unauthorised possession of a bottle of mayonnaise
distinction between unauthorised position and theft. The court held that, generically, theft and unauthorised possession were both forms of dishonesty and both were premised on conduct of an employee which deprived the employer of the ownership of an item.
Unauthorised possession dispensed with the requirement of intention and called on the consideration of three elements, namely: 1 an item belonging to the employer, 2 which was found in the possession of the employee and, 3 for which the employee has no authority to possess.
Continental Oil Mills (Pty) Ltd v Singh NO and Others
(JR 2152/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 30
Sylvania Metals (Pty) Ltd v Mello NO and Others
sanction
Precepts of Items 3(4) and 3(5) of the Code of Good Practice on Dismissal read with s 188(2) of the LRA, and the emphatic weight given by the Constitutional Court to the importance of having regard to a number of factors in deciding whether it was fair to dismiss an employee for misconduct. Would have dispelled the notion that a finding of guilt automatically determined the sanction. Applicant consistently dismissed any employee for the misconduct was not sufficient reason.
Whether his incapacity was permanent or temporary in nature. The applicant was unable to perform his duties in terms of his contract of employment and that his employer had acted fairly by dismissing him.
unauthorised absence
Dismissal without application of progressive discipline. This failure to warn employee of change in attitude should have been brought to attention of employee by commissioner
Misrepresentation in job application
Registration of in terms of Act 56 of 2001. Prohibition of employment of security officers with previous convictions. Applicable only to convictions with in period of 10 years prior to coming into operation of the Act in November 2001.
Of member of a close corporation. No proper decision taken at meeting of close corporation to dismiss member. Dismissal null and void.
she was given a prepared and already signed retrenchment agreement. She was instructed to sign the agreement or leave immediately. When she refused to sign she was told to pack her things and leave immediately. Charged with gross insolence and insubordination and was dismissed. She was provoked. Ulterior motive in proceeding with disciplinary action.
Employees had not challenged alleged bias at disciplinary hearing and not producing any evidence thereof.
No quorum
Mere fact of breach of misconduct not entitling employer to dismiss. Consideration of an appropriate sanction constituted an important yet separate component of the arbitration process. Not even considered important factors such as the employees considerable length of service (24 years) and the fact that he had an unblemished service record with his employer for that long period.
Be no doubt in the trust of that person who was responsible for the maintenance of the applicants accreditation system. Her dishonesty in the present case was of a serious magnitude. Fair.
Co-owner of business and husband of person who had made complaint. No evidence of bias on record and issue never raised or put to witnesses.
Consistency: never disputed that the employee had occupied the more responsible position as cashier and there was no evidence on important issues pertinent to the question of consistency for him to assume he was really dealing with comparable cases.
The existence and the reasonableness of the rule governing the conduct complained of was not disputed by the employee. Dismissal fair.
Arbitrator treating matter as one of incapacity despite the employee not having previously raised issue of alcoholism or sought assistance, No obligation on employer to assist employee who does not seek assistance.
alleged dereliction of duty and gross negligence for failing to follow due procedure to shut down the plant
The arbitrator had furthermore failed to appreciate the task that confronted him in considering whether the trust relationship had broken down.
Underringing at till, only suspicion, Unfair.
Clear from the evidence that the real reason was the perceived poor performance by the employee, Dismissal substantively unfair. Decision had been taken to terminate the employees services before the consultation process commenced.
Inticing other employees to strike, denial that he participated in strike, dishonisty, trust relation broken down, dismissal substantively fair.
Charges was negligence and not gross negligence, duration of offence and loss was very serious.
Reduction in salary, Test: Causation, was resignation due to conduct of employer, was resignation as a result of us and fuindamental breach of employment contract,was employer made aware of this.
Consistency: Have to take into account employees seniority and that magnitude of her offence compared to those of other employees.
Provided an affidavit to a professional consultancy concerning matters that were detrimental or potentially detrimental to his employers interests in potential litigation.
Failing to examine whether trust relationship had broken down.
serious disrespect
Stated: that management harassed employees. The invitation did not prescribe the format and the contents of the comment about the employees views. Dismissal was not an appropriate sanction.
persistent insubordinate behavior could justifiably not be tolerated by any employer.
Hand over laptop, was totally unacceptable and absolutely undermined the authority of his employer over him.
Employees conduct not bringing employer into disrepute.
"not every case of insubordination triggered a dismissal"
arbitrator and Labour Court holding that employee only negligent and dismissal not warranted
false information in CV
to appoint a person to a post who was only qualified for the post by making untrue claims in her application
Removal, Attempted removal, unauthorized possession of 1 L milk
If E/r lost control
Collective misconduct
Theft of scrap metal
the dismissal of the employee had been justified for operational reasons and had been fair.
JA51/09
George Miyambo v CCMA & others
Timekeeping
Resigned but e/er decide to dismiss; no procedure; CCMA found procedurally unfair; no compensation
charged for failing to report accident, found guilty for lying at hearing; unfair
Charges
to be notified with sufficient particularity of the real allegations against her
Gambling
no harm suffered
Value of items stolen not the determining factor; Regard must be had to the impact of the conduct on the employment relationship
Racist email
trite that supervening impossibility of performance is a defense to breach of contract which would also include the employment contract. Where the employee is the cause of his absence from. work, it appears that his service may be terminated. Where it is a factor beyond his control like an unlawful arrest which either leads to his acquittal or withdrawal of the charges, it cannot be said that the employee was absent without permission. As his incarceration was beyond his control, it could not be said that he was absent without permission. He had a valid reason for his absence and had to be reinstated but with loss of income.
Accepting a bribe
Dismissal fair although inconsistent
JR 2028
Mphigalale v Safety & Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others
Chairperson also acting as initiator; Unfair
operational incapacity ; No such category of dismissal
Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others (2005) 26 ILJ 1519 (LC)
Gross Negligence to be Negligence
loss of delivery of R135000 goods at bogus customer
C151/2012
Solid Doors (Pty) Ltd v Hanekom NO and Others
Attending traditional healer course
Ubuntu
Religious diversity
JA 78/10
Kievits Kroon Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v Mmoledi and Others
disclosed confidential customer details
racial slur
we need to get rid of the whites
racism through indirect, underhand or divisible means
JR1904/2010
Modikwa Mining Personnel Services v CCMA and Others
procedure; Disciplinary action
Mandate
Board to decide
J1780/10
Dyasi v Onderstepoort Biological Product Ltd and Others
Disciplinary hearing; illegal immigrant.
procedural fairness, Rampai J held that a meeting between an employer and employee could never be a substitute for a disciplinary enquiry and that what had happened in the meeting (in which he was informed of his dismissal) came nowhere close to a hearing.
sexual assault
Touching breast then immediate assault
Not allowed representation; delay in obtaining a representative was likely to have had an impact on the speedy finalization of the disciplinary hearing, a balance had to be struck between the interest of speedy finalization and a right to representation.
authority
the manager who had signed the letter authorizing the employees extended absence did not have the authority to do so; this could not become the problem of the employee.
Disciplinary notice
must be unambiguous and must contain sufficient and precise information to ensure employee has proper opportunity to prepare
take into account all the circumstances; consider the importance of the rule breached; consider the reason the employer imposed the sanction of dismissal, as he or she must take into account the basis of the employees challenge to the dismissal; consider the harm caused by the employees conduct; consider whether additional training and instruction may result in the employee not repeating the misconduct; consider the effect of dismissal on the employee and consider the employees service record.
gross negligence; security of cash
Stock loss
evidence needed to be led to substantiate the fact that continued employment would be intolerable
for sleeping underground
dismissal was too harsh
Steeling R14-00 caught on security cameras
Employees conduct destroying trust relationship; Length of service and clean record cannot serve as mitigating factors
JR1068/02
Ster Kinekor Films (Pty) Ltd v Maseko N.O. & Others
Probation
No procedure followed
JR2175/09
South African Football Association v Ramabulana NO & Others
type of the work
did not perform skilled, technically complex and responsible tasks: he was a general worker who was loading tyres onto a truck at the time
Zero tolerance
Level of alertness required could not be compared to that of a pilot Dismissal too harsh in the circumstances
C24/2011
Taxi-Trucks Parcel Express (Pty) Ltd v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry and Others
alcohol was being sold on the farm
employee called out that he sold alcohol
absence from work for a period of eight days.
laid down a rule; instructed to call his manager directly before six; not unreasonable for the employer to want to know when the applicant would be back at work
D994/09
Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Lewis and Others
Corruption
Prevention and Combating of Corruption Activities Act of 2000
corruption
influence of alcohol
category of misconduct for reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol had not been extinguished by the incapacity classification for employees with alcoholism. An obligation to assist an employee who does not suffer from such incapacity does not rest on the shoulders of an employer. Such an employee is responsible for their actions and can, and should, be held accountable for any misconduct they commit. Once a commissioner finds that an employee is not an alcoholic he/she is required to consider whether a finding of guilt is fair and whether the sanction applied by the employer is reasonable and justified in the circumstances. In order to do this the commissioner is required to continue to apply the law relating to misconduct and not that relating to incapacity. A further consideration ought to be the implications of being lenient in the application of an important rule and the message such leniency sends to other employees regarding the infringement of such a rule. The need to deter other employees from committing the same misconduct is a response to risk management and is as legitimate a reason for dismissal as a breakdown in trust. The commissioner had failed to take these principles into account in coming to the conclusion that he did
Theft copper wire
Defense he was a kleptomaniac, issue before the arbitrator concerned the dishonest conduct of the respondent
failed to wash his truck
employer had acted too hastily in dismissing him; progressive discipline
JR 896/10
Karan Beef (Pty) Ltd v Mbelengwa NO and Others
30 years service; fairness in favor of the employee
(i) the employee had not denied the commission of the offence; (ii) he had accepted that what he had done was wrong, and had subjected himself to a further medical assessment and treatment; (iii) the offence had been a result of provocative behavior on the part of the learner; and (iv) the disciplinary action had been taken only because of pressure from outside the school. The matter could possibly have been resolved through internal facilitation.
JR2885/08
Stander v Department of Education, North West
Avril Elizabeth Home for the Mentally Handicapped v CCMA and Others (2006) 27 ILJ 1644 (LC)
C109/2010
Nitrophoska (Pty) Ltd V CCMA and Others
less formal approach particularly suitable where senior management employee; aware that his misconduct had destroyed the trust relationship; conceded to superior that he had failed
False driver's license
no remorse
trust breached
Sanction:
following factors: the employee had had an unblemished service record of 16 years; the value of the food taken by the employee had been minimal; it had been evident from the evidence presented at arbitration that the employee had not acted in flagrant violation of company rules; the item the employee had taken was not a luxury item or an item which the employee had stolen to enrich herself; the employee had not been employed in a supervisory position; and she had not worked in a specialty department, from where most of the shrinkage in the employers shop originated.
Onus on employer to show
cable from a bin, no rule existed
Rule Zero tolerance
consistency in cases of dismissal did not apply as a matter of rule, but rather as part of the assessment of the fairness of the dismissal
C23/08
National Union of Mine Workers & Another v CCMA & Others
Edcon v Pillemer NO & Others (2009) 30 ILJ 2642 (SCA)
JR2279/07
Mathews v CCMA & Others
Renting of vehicle
breach of trust
Objective test; examine entire context
Objectively, the type of conduct displayed by the employee had had the potential, at the very least, to call into question the reputation of the employer.
DA22/08
Timothy v Nampak Corrugated Containers (Pty) Ltd
Previous disciplinary record
Irretrievable breakdown in relationship not established
Fidelity Cash Management Service v CCMA & others (2008) 29 ILJ 964 (LAC))
C966/08
Theewaterskloof Municipality v SALGBC (Western Cape Division) & Others
The nature of a commissioners task in considering the question of sanction was not to decide what he/she would have imposed as a sanction, but rather to decide whether what the employer decided as to sanction had been fair.
Penalty
Special leave for long period
Unlawful
D908/09
Antonie Willem Heyneke v Umhlatuze Municipality
malicious damage to an aircraft and not following standard operating procedures.
misrepresentation qualifications
trust relationship not broken
misconduct and incapacity due to ill health
finding of insubordination as opposed to gross insubordination in arriving at the conclusion that dismissal was too severe a sanction
Gravity of misconduct relevant; seniority relevant; different sanction justified; application dismissed
pornography
inconsistency; parity principle
First, it was trite that not every wrong conclusion of law led to a conclusion that there had not been a fair trial; the mistake of law had to be material. Secondly, the law as it currently stood was that an employer was entitled, when it was fair to do so (subject to the qualification that it was only in exceptional circumstances that it would be fair), to revisit a penalty already imposed and substitute it with a more severe sanction.
D460/08
Samson v CCMA & Others
Breathalyzer test
company policy on breathalyzer
Other case law cited
Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Radebe & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 340 (LAC
JR1609/06
Cash Paymaster Services Northwest (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others
dishonesty
dismissal of the third respondent (the employee) for misconduct was too harsh. There were various authorities to support the view that it was not every act of dishonesty that would lead to an automatic dismissal
Whether employer may alter sanction of final warning imposed by chairperson to dismissal; findings and conclusions were so grossly unreasonable as to warrant interference by the employer
Dismissal; Inconsistency
One employee found guilty and another not despite the circumstances of their alleged transgression being the same; Unfair
Theft
Driver deviating from route on day employers fresh produce stolen
Employer may not increase sanction on appeal unless provided for in its disciplinary procedure and audi alteram partem rule applied
stock loss
racist remark
"he felt that the manager was busy"; interrogating him as if I am in Vlakplaas here.
employers should also guard against labeling actions as racist without having investigated properly.
JR3232/06
Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Gildenhuys N.O. & Others
Reasons at time of dismissal apply
failure to prove
HIV AIDS
Conflict of interest
Language
"Monkey"
The level of malice, the extent of the abuse and its degree are factors that may aggravate the offence.
D202/06
Edcon Ltd v Grobler & Others
no mitigation; can not cure dishonesty
D600/05
Kalik v Truworths (Gateway) & Others
Refusal to work overtime
against BCEA
insubordination
(i) an order, which could also be in the form of a warning, had to have been given to the employee; (ii) the order had to be lawful; (iii) the reasonableness of the order had to be beyond reproach; and (iv) the refusal or failure by the employee to obey the order had to have been serious enough to warrant dismissal.
E/e must be blamed
no breakdown trust relationship
Absenteeism
Medical certificate by traditional healer
Rejected
JR1412/05
Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others
Alcohol abuse
Was responsible for actions
Dangerous work
C644/2009
Transnet Freight Rail v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others
Absence without leave
the reason for the employees absence, the duration of the absence, the employees work record, and the employers handling of this offence in the past. The onus rested on the employee to tender a reasonable explanation for her absence.
Sangoma course
JR1856/08
Kievits Kroon Country Estate (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others
Bringing name in disrepute
no evidence that relationship of trust had broken down.
provide sufficient information to enable them to participate meaningfully in the process
The fact that the employer had never expressly referred to dismissal in any email was not significant in any way, since it had not been necessary to use the word dismissal.
No return to work, refusal fair
to be viewed from the point of view of the victim the question was therefore how the victim perceived the conduct, and whether or not the perception was reasonable
An inconsistency challenge would fail where the employer was able to differentiate between employees who committed similar transgressions on the basis of, among others, different personal circumstances, the severity of the misconduct, or other material factors.
termination resulted in dismissal
The reason for the dismissal also had to be the one in existence at the time the employee was notified of his dismissal
Alcohol related
Insufficient evidence that employees faculties, performance or conduct affected
Employee not meeting targets over protracted period despite counseling; Dismissal fair
Fairness of a sanction
employees belief that his action was in the interests of the employer and not in his own interest
Whether conduct work related; Employer to show a nexus between the employees conduct and its business; Stokvel scheme
fair
Employee misrepresenting himself as an attorney acting on employers behalf; Dismissal justified
No fraud established; Dismissal unfair; Employee could have been dismissed for gross negligence had he been charged with that
Imprisonment
preferred charge; supervening; impossibility of performance,
not date when contract terminated
190(2)
enquire into the employees ability to perform the work; the extent of the employees inability; the extent to which the employees work circumstances can be adapted to accommodate the disability and alternatives short of dismissal.
consult in a meaningful
consider options for reasonable accommodation; alternatives will cause unjustified hardship
JR 662/06
Standard Bank of South Africa v CCMA & others
deviating from own code and dismissing employee while code recommended final warning
no consultation with union outside bargaining unit
Lifo not followed
It therefore does not necessarily follow that the outcome of a disciplinary hearing of the employees charged with the same offence will automatically be the same.
Amount of compensation in terms of s 194 cannot extend beyond the termination date of the contract
dishonesty, attempted blackmail or extortion, and conduct destroying the employment relationship; attempted extortion of R5 million; the arbitrator also failed to consider whether the company was entitled to charge Mr Breugem with misconduct a second time, despite the charges being different, after the ruling of the first hearing; company to pay Mr Breugem compensation in an amount equal to nine months remuneration.
the sanction of dismissal was not appropriate as Mr Tyumse had probably been provoked or had acted in self-defense. In her finding she also took into account Mr Tyumses clean service record of more than 20 years as a strong mitigatory factor
consistency was an element of disciplinary fairness to be determined in each case and it should not be rigidly applied (see SACCAWU & Others v Irvine & Johnson [1999] 20 ILJ 2302 (LAC)
employees clocked in by their colleague had not yet arrived at work although the rest were on the premises. The employees were charged with fraud.
finding that the employees must have benefited in order for their actions to constitute fraud was an error of law
guidelines for employers on how to deal with matters of inconsistency were given in Cape Town City Council v Masitho & Others ((2000) 21 ILJ 1957 (LAC)
Alcohol
breathalyser showed a red indicator and the employee was told to leave the company premises; The arbitrator observed that the employer had been inconsistent in the application of the rule against the use of alcohol at the workplace and found that because of the inconsistency the dismissal of the employee had been unfair
gross misconduct; removed bones from chuck steak
was an established labour law principle that the value of unauthorised stock appropriation was irrelevant and that the correct sanction was dismissal
Doouble jeopardy
Branford v Metrorail Services (Durban) and Others [2004] 3 BLLR 199(LAC) the arbitrators award was set aside as the employee was punished twice for one offence. In their decision the LAC also relied on the finding in BMW (SA)(Pty) Ltd v van der Walt (2000)21 ILJ 113(LAC) which held that a second disciplinary enquiry may be opened against an employee if it was in all circumstances fair to do so.
while picketing at the Bloemfontein offices he incited others to picket, he threatened to hold the management of the branch hostage, and he caused damage to company property
Commissioner had committed a gross irregularity when he completely ignored evidence of the nature of the strike action. They averred that there was clear and undisputed evidence that the strike, despite being protected, was often violent and destructive; he had made no direct threats at all
JR1275/01
Fidelity Springbok Security Services (Pty) Ltd v The CCMA; Cronje, NO & Telford, W
Remorse
De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others ((2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC)
behaving aggressively towards a customer and using abusive language, thus damaging customer relations.
employer was entitled to adopt the attitude that the risk of employing a senior employee who engaged in such behavior and showed no remorse was unacceptably great
gaining access to managements drawers without authorisation it was noted that one witness testified before the Commissioner that the employee had forced open the drawer and removed a confidential document; the employee had done this openly in front of the witness; have been procedurally and substantively unfair
delay in instituting disciplinary proceedings had prejudiced the employee and no proper witness statements had been taken.
Receiving a tip
Not an actionable offence.
The employees were not dismissed but discharged by operation of law. The arbitrator and the Council had no jurisdiction to consider the matter.
sending an offensive e-mail
; it had been sent to a computer which was owned by ING
Monitoring Prohibition Act (MP Act) ; and it had not been unlawful to read the e-mail
JR613/02
Van Wyk, S v Independent Newspapers Gauteng (Pty) Ltd; CCMA & Boyce, T N.O.
sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; Charged he was not gainfully employed
in s 17(5)(a)(i); and that dismissal by operation of law was not dismissal in accordance with s 186 of the LRA; dismissal in accordance with s 17(2)(c) was not relevant because the dismissal was substantively by operation of law.
nobody had informed him of his dismissal and that he had relied solely on his own perceptions
therefore lacked jurisdiction and acted ultra vires and therefore the award fell to be set aside.
employee had communicated the arrest; dismissed the employee in absentia despite knowing that he was in prison; that there had been no indication that he had been willfully absent; there had been a supervening impossibility for him to tender his services
contravention of LOA rules
had made a false declaration
Irresponsible use of company credit card (not fraud)
Ms Marks reported herself to Ms Singh in the financial department saying that she had used the company card for personal expenses and wanted to know how to effect repayment. Thereafter she continued to use the card although not often, the figure of the usage was agreed to have been R1000, although other figures were mentioned from time to time. Ms Marks argued that there was no written policy dealing with the use of company credit cards
JR152/04
Tibbett & Britten (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Marks, Marilyn; National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry & Tsatsimpe, Mapalo N.O.
Gross negligence, unauthoised use of company funds
Ms Molope admitted that she held the responsibilities of an Area Manager but not the authority to act as such; noted that this contradiction was never properly explained.
substantively fair
JR1950/02
Molope, Ms Phoebe v Commissioner BH Mbha; CCMA & Morkels Stores
with rudeness to a client, poor customer service and damaging the image of the company
Unfair
Theft of Rubber tape
Commissioner erred in seeking to correct the employers sanction and failed to give proper consideration to the employers zero-tolerance policy. Held further that shifts in policy affect the requirement of consistency and render it a less than hard and fast rule. With regard to the issue of a breakdown in the trust relationship reference was made to the viewpoint of Grogan in Dismissal (Juta, CT 2002) on page 99 and the judgment in De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & Others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC)
Dismissal fair
C819/02
Consani Engineering (Pty) Ltd v CCMA; Rabker-Naicker H NO; National Union of Metalworkers of SA & Shoko, J
Strike
Held that a consideration of conflicting evidence revealed no factual basis for such differentiation and concluded that most of the dismissals were unfair, as indeed being selective, although four individual dismissals were upheld on substantive grounds.
that inconsistent application of discipline may lead to perceptions of unfair treatment and that an employer may therefore be required to justify differential treatment of employees in order to avoid a finding that there was in fact unfair treatment
absenteeism
parity of treatment
the fact that a penalty was competent does not mean that the suggested penalty is mandatory and that the code should (only) serve as a guideline
Obedience and loyalty on the part of an employee constitute the core and nucleus of a successful and sustainable working relationship between employer and employee. Flagrant defiance by an employee of a reasonable and lawful instruction given by a competent authority of the employer, within the ambit and scope of the employees employment, is therefore both abhorrable (sic) and untenable.
that no evidence had been led before the Commissioner to show that the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down. Held that the sanction of dismissal imposed by the Commissioner was not rationally justifiable
disciplined for taking a quarter loaf of bread when he was not allegedly entitled to
the employer had not discharged its onus to show that the dismissal was fair because it had not shown that the employee was not authorised to take the bread could not be faulted
was not that the [employee] did not perform in the context of her appointment neglected to do so or did not do so to the best of her ability. Those would have been disciplinary issues, inviting a different form of reaction by the employer. The issue was one of incapacity, and inability on the part of the [employee] to achieve the reasonable standards of performance set for her by the [employer] notwithstanding what presents as a generous opportunity over an extended period to do so. That she could not achieve those standards in the end result became justifiably an untenable situation as far as the [employer] was concerned (at [4] - [23], referring inter alia to Sun Couriers (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others (2002) 23 ILJ 189 (LC),
dishonesty and misrepresentation: qualifications
not consistently applied discipline in that other offenders had merely been instructed to remove their bars without being charged with misconduct, let alone dismissed.
Procedure
double jeopardy: delayed for three months before instituting a disciplinary hearing; already acquitted the employee of the offence at an earlier hearing; relied on a balance of probabilities when finding the employee guilty of the offence
Disciplinary Procedure
final written warning; Two days later senior management altered the sanction to one of dismissal; employers disciplinary code made no provision for intervention or the overruling of such determination and that this was the first time it had intervened in such a manner
reading twice that permitted by the employer eight hours after he had commenced his shift and that this in itself was a dismissible offence
fraud; submitting a claim for overtime which he had not worked
Fraud is a dismissible offence and dismissal is the appropriate sanction in keeping with the trite principles of Labour Law
charged of misappropriation of property
should have been charged with theft, if theft was to be relied on by the
other case law sited: County Fair Foods (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & others (1999) 20 ILJ 1701 (LAC)
Sanction
other case law sited: De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v CCMA & others (2000) 21 ILJ 1051 (LAC)
Currying and firing firearm
Sanction: Held further that the Commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity in interfering with the sanction imposed by the employer. Held: It is settled law that generally an employers sanction should not be interfered with except only in circumstances where the sanction is so excessive as to shock ones sense of fairness or in circumstances where sanction (sic) is totally unreasonable and unfair
calling of, or, the reference to, an African person in South Africa as a Kaffir by a person who is not an African is part of the racial abuse
the employer is entitled to set its own performance standards for a senior employee and to assess whether those standards have been met, and that a court will not intervene unless the standards or the assessment are grossly unreasonable
Protected strike
Blocking employer's premises; serious misconduct (Imperial Car rental v TGWU LAC NH11/2/22/436); Fair
Stabbing person outside place of employment; effect of the misconduct on the employment relationship
Theft of 16 meatballs
Theft or attempted theft equally serious; dismissal due to dishonesty
desertion
Consistency
Trust relationship had not broken down (Anglo American farms t/a Boschendal Restaurants vs Komjwayo (1992) 13 ILJ 573 (LAC))
Falsifying overtime claim
Trust relationship had not broken down; Long service; Remorse; Appeal dismissed
Nature of warning
No issue warning
Insubordination; employer may require employee to perform whatever work is required of him provided that such work falls within the scope of his ability
Absent vs no leave form
Fraud
Fraudulent scheme
Assault
derivative misconduct
association wit culprits
Dishonesty
Dishonesty entails a lack of integrity or straightforwardness and, in particular, a willingness to steal, cheat, lie or act fraudulently
had not tried to conceal facts from the employer, as alleged, and that they had therefore not been dishonest
DA4/01
Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank & Others
not reporting overpayment
if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable
JR603/2015
Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Malapane and Others (JR603/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 5 (5 January 2017)
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union v Minister of Correctional Services and Others [1999] 20 ILJ 2416 (LC) at 2425, par [33]
the charge sheet should contain factual information as to the nature of an allegation against the employee sufficient for an employee to know the case he is expected to meet.
exactly that. Instead of resignation it used the word discharged.
remunerative employment, took up other remunerative employment he/she had to be deemed to have resigned. Section 17(5) read with s 30(b) meant
employee, who was prohibited by his/her contract of employment from taking any
amounts to breach of the contract of employment, but does not in itself bring the contract of employment to an end. Held: The breach of the contract does, in itself, not bring about a termination of the contract. [32] The termination requires an acceptance of the breach by the employer, which then amounts to a dismissal
Termination of employment only occurred when the employer subsequently accepted the repudiation of the employee
