Char Trade 117 CC t/a Ace Packaging v Kloppers And Others (JR2198/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 28 (1 January 2016)

Char Trade 117 CC t/a Ace Packaging v Kloppers And Others (JR2198/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 28 (1 January 2016)

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner correctly focused on whether the specific conduct alleged—dancing on tables—was proved and whether it constituted a breach of a known workplace rule. The evidence showed that Kloppers did not dance on the tables and that no clear or documented standard existed regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 28
Parties
Applicant: Char Trade 117 CC t/a Ace Packaging; Respondent: Roseline Kloppers; Respondent: Bongani Khumalo N.O.; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2016
Case Number
JR2198/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of Kloppers was found to be substantively unfair. The applicant was ordered to pay compensation equivalent to six months' salary.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Compensation, Audi Alteram Partem, Bias in Disciplinary Hearing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Compensation Audi Alteram Partem Bias in Disciplinary Hearing

Source-derived case record

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Char Trade 117 CC t/a Ace Packaging

Applicant

Roseline Kloppers

Respondent

Bongani Khumalo N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of Kloppers was substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary hearing was procedurally fair, specifically regarding bias and the right to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner was just and equitable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the Commissioner correctly focused on whether the specific conduct alleged—dancing on tables—was proved and whether it constituted a breach of a known workplace rule. The evidence showed that Kloppers did not dance on the tables and that no clear or documented standard existed regarding such behaviour. The company's culture was inconsistent and permissive regarding alcohol and entertainment, and no valid rule was communicated to employees. The finding of substantive unfairness was upheld. However, the Commissioner erred in his approach to procedural fairness and bias, as he did not apply the correct legal test. The Chairperson's conduct did not amount to bias...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The dismissal of Kloppers was found to be substantively unfair. The applicant was ordered to pay compensation equivalent to six months' salary.

Orders

  • The award under case number GAJB11204-13 is reviewed and set aside and substituted as follows:
  • The dismissal of Rosline Kloppers was substantively unfair.