Brown v Cash Build and Others (JR169/07) [2007] ZALCJHB 49 (4 August 2007)
The court held that the applicant, as system supervisor, was negligent in failing to ensure that cheques she counter-signed were not post-dated, as required by the employer's rules. Although she did not authorise receipt of post-dated cheques, her liability arose from her failure to discharge her supervisory duties....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] ZALCJHB 49
- Parties
- Applicant: Elizabeth Brown; Respondent: Cash Build; Respondent: Sebotha N.O.; Respondent: CCMA
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR169/07
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review dismissed; condonation refused.
- Judges
- Pillay D
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Negligence, Condonation, Dismissal for Misconduct
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elizabeth Brown
Applicant
Cash Build
Respondent
Sebotha N.O.
Respondent
CCMA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was negligent in her duties as system supervisor regarding post-dated cheques.
- 2 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable on the facts presented.
- 3 Whether condonation for late filing should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, as system supervisor, was negligent in failing to ensure that cheques she counter-signed were not post-dated, as required by the employer's rules. Although she did not authorise receipt of post-dated cheques, her liability arose from her failure to discharge her supervisory duties. The arbitrator's award was found to be reasonable and supported by the facts. The application for review was dismissed, and condonation for late filing was also refused.
Court Disposition
Application for review dismissed; condonation refused.
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
LOM Business Solutions t/a Set LK Transcribers
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO: JR169/07
2007-09-04
NOT REPORTABLE
In the matter between
MS ELIZABETH BROWN Applicant
and
CASH BUILD 1st Respondent
SEBOTHA N.O. 2nd
Respondent
CCMA
3rd Respondent
J U D G M E N T
PILLAY D, J:
The second respondent in the application for review, the commissioner found and it was common cause that the applicant, the employee, had signed the documentation acknowledging receipt of cash and cheques in her capacity as the system supervisor. It was also her responsibility to ensure that the cheques were not post-dated.
The employee acknowledges that it was a rule of the employer not to receive post-dated cheques. However, she denies that it was her responsibility to ensure that the cheques collected were not post-dated. She contends that her responsibility was only to ensure
that the cash and cheques presented on the documentation tallied with the physical amount collected by the cashier.
The arbitrator found that the ultimate responsibility for the cash lay with the system supervisor and that the employee in her capacity as system supervisor had signed the documentation and the post-dated cheques that were kept in the safe. The manager, who was also
co responsible for the supervision of the cash and cheques collected, was dismissed following this incident, as was the employee.
The court notes that the employee did not authorise receipt of the post dated cheques and that her liability stems purely from her negligence to ensure that the cheques for which she counter-signed were not post dated. The court finds that the award is unassailable on the admitted and proven facts.
In the circumstances the application for review is dismissed with no order as to costs. The application for condonation must also fail.
_____________
PILLAY D, J
Date of Hearing: 04 September 2007
Date of Judgment: 04 September 2007
Date of Editing: 29 January 2008
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: In person
For the Respondent: Snyman Attorneys