Austin-Day v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (PA02/2020) [2022] ZALAC 6; [2022] 6 BLLR 514 (LAC) (8 March 2022)

Austin-Day v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (PA02/2020) [2022] ZALAC 6; [2022] 6 BLLR 514 (LAC) (8 March 2022)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to dishonesty. The evidence showed she acted openly, voluntarily disclosed her actions, and left a clear paper trail. There was no intention to deceive or gain improper advantage, and her performance targets were already met. The bank failed to prove any material risk, prejudice, or breach of specific policies justifying dismissal. The commissioner’s findings were reasonable, and the dismissal was substantively unfair. Reinstatement was the appropriate remedy.

Citation
[2022] ZALAC 6
Parties
Appellant: Felicity Austin-Day; Respondent: ABSA Bank Ltd; Respondent: Theodorus Potgieter; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2022
Case Number
PA02/2020
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Waglay, Coppin, Kubushi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Dishonesty in Employment, Reinstatement, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Dishonesty in Employment Reinstatement Review of Arbitration Award

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicity Austin-Day

Appellant

ABSA Bank Ltd

Respondent

Theodorus Potgieter

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's dismissal for alleged dishonesty was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted dishonesty warranting dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award reinstating the appellant was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to dishonesty. The evidence showed she acted openly, voluntarily disclosed her actions, and left a clear paper trail. There was no intention to deceive or gain improper advantage, and her performance targets were already met. The bank failed to prove any material risk, prejudice, or breach of specific policies justifying dismissal. The commissioner’s findings were reasonable, and the dismissal was substantively unfair. Reinstatement was the appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court order set aside; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Labour Court is set aside and substituted with: 'The review application is dismissed.'