Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Pillay and Others (JR310/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 163 (3 May 2018)

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Pillay and Others (JR310/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 163 (3 May 2018)

The court found that the commissioner’s acquittal of the employee on the first and third incidents was unreasonable. In the first incident, the employee gave away company goods without authority and attempted to conceal the transaction, which constituted dishonesty. In the third incident, the employee generated a contrived tax invoice to facilitate the removal of goods, again acting dishonestly. The commissioner failed to properly consider the evidence and the seriousness of the misconduct. The court held that, given the employee’s seniority and the trust placed in him, dismissal was a substantively fair sanction. The commissioner’s findings regarding the second incident were not...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 163
Parties
Applicant: Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Krishna Pillay; Respondent: S Bhana N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2018
Case Number
JR310/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of the employee was found to be substantively fair. No order as to costs was made.
Judges
Myburgh, AJ
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Negligence, Dishonesty, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Gross Negligence Dishonesty Remedies for Unfair Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Krishna Pillay

Respondent

S Bhana N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner’s finding that the employee was not guilty of misconduct was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the award of compensation to the employee was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s acquittal of the employee on the first and third incidents was unreasonable. In the first incident, the employee gave away company goods without authority and attempted to conceal the transaction, which constituted dishonesty. In the third incident, the employee generated a contrived tax invoice to facilitate the removal of goods, again acting dishonestly. The commissioner failed to properly consider the evidence and the seriousness of the misconduct. The court held that, given the employee’s seniority and the trust placed in him, dismissal was a substantively fair sanction. The commissioner’s findings regarding the second incident were not...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of the employee was found to be substantively fair. No order as to costs was made.

Orders

  • The award issued by the second respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • The award is substituted with an order that the applicant’s dismissal of the first respondent was substantively fair.