Central University of Technology v Channer and Others (JA59/2016) [2017] ZALAC 66 (1 November 2017)

Central University of Technology v Channer and Others (JA59/2016) [2017] ZALAC 66 (1 November 2017)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the employee deliberately manipulated the quotation process to ensure his preferred service provider received the contract, constituting quotation rigging and dishonest conduct. The employee failed to comply with a lawful instruction, misrepresented facts to his superiors, and attempted to conceal irregularities. The Commissioner’s reasoning was materially irregular and failed to address the true nature of the charges. The Labour Court erred by focusing on lack of training and disregarding the proven misconduct. The dismissal was substantively fair, and the arbitration award was unreasonable and should be set...

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 66
Parties
Appellant: Central University of Technology; Respondent: E J Channer; Respondent: Pehelo Motake NO; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Free State)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2017
Case Number
JA59/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; arbitration award set aside; dismissal found substantively fair.
Judges
Tlaletsi, Coppin, Sutherland
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Dishonesty in Employment, Quotation Rigging, Substantive Fairness, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Dishonesty in Employment Quotation Rigging Substantive Fairness Disciplinary Procedure

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central University of Technology

Appellant

E J Channer

Respondent

Pehelo Motake NO

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (Free State)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee's dismissal for dishonesty and manipulation of quotation processes was substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner and Labour Court erred in finding no misconduct due to absence or inconsistent application of a procurement rule.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established a scheme of quotation rigging and dishonest conduct by the employee.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the employee deliberately manipulated the quotation process to ensure his preferred service provider received the contract, constituting quotation rigging and dishonest conduct. The employee failed to comply with a lawful instruction, misrepresented facts to his superiors, and attempted to conceal irregularities. The Commissioner’s reasoning was materially irregular and failed to address the true nature of the charges. The Labour Court erred by focusing on lack of training and disregarding the proven misconduct. The dismissal was substantively fair, and the arbitration award was unreasonable and should be set...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; arbitration award set aside; dismissal found substantively fair.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the second respondent under case number F51237/11 on 10 September 2011 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dismissal of the first respondent (Mr E J Channer) was substantively fair.