Adcock Ingram Critical Care v CCMA and others (JA41/00) [2001] ZALAC 10; [2001] 9 BLLR 979 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1799 (LAC) (29 June 2001)

Adcock Ingram Critical Care v CCMA and others (JA41/00) [2001] ZALAC 10; [2001] 9 BLLR 979 (LAC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1799 (LAC) (29 June 2001)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the statement made by the fourth respondent constituted a real threat of violence and intimidation in the context of ongoing strike-related violence. The Court held that the privileged environment of collective bargaining does not grant union representatives immunity from internal disciplinary action for serious misconduct. Both the commissioner and the Labour Court misdirected themselves on the facts and law by failing to appreciate the seriousness of the threat and by incorrectly applying the principle of immunity. The disciplinary inquiry's finding of guilt and the sanction of dismissal were justified. The appeal was upheld, the Labour Court's order...

Citation
[2001] ZALAC 10
Parties
Appellant: Adcock Ingram Critical Care; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mike Miles; Respondent: South African Chemical Workers Union; Respondent: Theophelus Vilakazi
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2001
Case Number
JA41/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. Labour Court's order set aside. Commissioner's award of reinstatement overturned.
Judges
Van Dijkhorst, Zondo, Comrie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Collective Bargaining, Disciplinary Procedure, Immunity of Union Representatives
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Collective Bargaining Disciplinary Procedure Immunity of Union Representatives

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adcock Ingram Critical Care

Appellant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mike Miles

Respondent

South African Chemical Workers Union

Respondent

Theophelus Vilakazi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the fourth respondent constituted a threat amounting to intimidation under the employer's disciplinary code.
  2. 2 Whether union representatives acting in a collective bargaining context are immune from internal disciplinary action for misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner and Labour Court misdirected themselves on the facts and law regarding unfair dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the statement made by the fourth respondent constituted a real threat of violence and intimidation in the context of ongoing strike-related violence. The Court held that the privileged environment of collective bargaining does not grant union representatives immunity from internal disciplinary action for serious misconduct. Both the commissioner and the Labour Court misdirected themselves on the facts and law by failing to appreciate the seriousness of the threat and by incorrectly applying the principle of immunity. The disciplinary inquiry's finding of guilt and the sanction of dismissal were justified. The appeal was upheld, the Labour Court's order...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. Labour Court's order set aside. Commissioner's award of reinstatement overturned.

Orders

  • The application for review is upheld.
  • The award of the commissioner is set aside, with costs.