Cambridge Meat v Mhlongo and Others (D1366/02 D1367/02) [2003] ZALC 83 (6 August 2003)

Cambridge Meat v Mhlongo and Others (D1366/02 D1367/02) [2003] ZALC 83 (6 August 2003)

The court found that the employer failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dismissal was substantively fair. The evidence presented by the employer was largely hearsay and did not contradict the employee's version, which was given on oath and supported by company policy allowing two quarter loaves per shift. The absence of key witnesses and documentary evidence further weakened the employer's case. The commissioner was justified in accepting the employee's version and finding that the dismissal was not substantively fair. Additionally, even if the employee had consumed the bread without permission, the employer acted inconsistently in its disciplinary practices, violating the...

Citation
[2003] ZALC 83
Parties
Applicant: Cambridge Meat; Respondent: D M Mhlongo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: SACCAWU
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2003
Case Number
D1366/02 D1367/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs; arbitration award made an order of court with costs.
Judges
Gering
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Parity Principle, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Substantive Fairness Parity Principle 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cambridge Meat

Applicant

D M Mhlongo

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

SACCAWU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the employer discharged the onus of proving substantive fairness.
  3. 3 Whether the parity principle was correctly applied in the treatment of employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the employer failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dismissal was substantively fair. The evidence presented by the employer was largely hearsay and did not contradict the employee's version, which was given on oath and supported by company policy allowing two quarter loaves per shift. The absence of key witnesses and documentary evidence further weakened the employer's case. The commissioner was justified in accepting the employee's version and finding that the dismissal was not substantively fair. Additionally, even if the employee had consumed the bread without permission, the employer acted inconsistently in its disciplinary practices, violating the...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs; arbitration award made an order of court with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review of the arbitration award is dismissed with costs.
  • The arbitration award dated 16 May 2002 is made an order of court in terms of section 158, with costs.