Bidvest Steiner (Pty) Ltd v Nkgoeng and Others (JR235/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 45 (27 February 2014)

Bidvest Steiner (Pty) Ltd v Nkgoeng and Others (JR235/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 45 (27 February 2014)

The court held that the Commissioner correctly interpreted the company policy by ascribing the ordinary meaning to 'family member' and refusing to expand it to include relationships not expressly covered. The Commissioner did not act unreasonably or commit a gross irregularity by not considering the purpose of the rule once he found no breach of the rule. The decision that the dismissal was substantively unfair was reasonable and justifiable based on the evidence. The application to review and set aside the arbitration award was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 45
Parties
Applicant: Bidvest Steiner (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nkgoeng, W N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sihaukele Nxongo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Case Number
JR235/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
Haffegee
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Interpretation of Company Policy, Gross Irregularity, Compensation Award
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Interpretation of Company Policy Gross Irregularity Compensation 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bidvest Steiner (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nkgoeng, W N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sihaukele Nxongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the company policy prohibiting employment of direct or indirect family members was breached.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity by failing to consider the purpose of the policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Commissioner correctly interpreted the company policy by ascribing the ordinary meaning to 'family member' and refusing to expand it to include relationships not expressly covered. The Commissioner did not act unreasonably or commit a gross irregularity by not considering the purpose of the rule once he found no breach of the rule. The decision that the dismissal was substantively unfair was reasonable and justifiable based on the evidence. The application to review and set aside the arbitration award was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award made by the first respondent under the auspices of the second respondent under case number MP 7589 – 11 dated 27 December 2011 is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.