Air-o-Thene Products (Pty) Ltd v Ford and Another (JR 1414/07) [2010] ZALC 241 (3 February 2010)

Air-o-Thene Products (Pty) Ltd v Ford and Another (JR 1414/07) [2010] ZALC 241 (3 February 2010)

The court found that the commissioner was correct in concluding that the dismissal was substantively unfair, as the applicant failed to provide the first respondent with necessary training to meet new performance standards. Procedural unfairness was established because the applicant did not provide the first...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 241
Parties
Applicant: Air-o-Thene Products (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Christine Ford; Respondent: Zodwa Mdladla
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2010
Case Number
JR 1414/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award partially substituted regarding compensation calculation.
Judges
Nyathela
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Poor Work Performance, Compensation Calculation, Section 197 Transfer
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Poor Work Performance Compensation Calculation Section 197 Transfer

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Air-o-Thene Products (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Christine Ford

Respondent

Zodwa Mdladla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the first respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the compensation awarded was correctly calculated, specifically regarding the inclusion of commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner was correct in concluding that the dismissal was substantively unfair, as the applicant failed to provide the first respondent with necessary training to meet new performance standards. Procedural unfairness was established because the applicant did not provide the first respondent with relevant documents prior to the disciplinary hearing, denying her a fair opportunity to prepare. However, the court held that the commissioner erred in including commission in the compensation calculation, as the change in remuneration after the transfer of business was not substantial and did not warrant inclusion of commission. The award was substituted to reflect...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award partially substituted regarding compensation calculation.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued by the second respondent on 04 May 2007 under case number MEGA 7310 is dismissed.
  • Paragraph 4.1.2 of the award is substituted with an order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent compensation in the sum of R192,000.00, equivalent to twelve months' remuneration at R16,000.00 per month.