Dikobe v Sun City (JA 45/2015) [2016] ZALAC 67 (15 June 2016)

Dikobe v Sun City (JA 45/2015) [2016] ZALAC 67 (15 June 2016)

The court found that the employer failed to prove the existence, content, scope, and effective communication of any workplace rule prohibiting the appellant's conduct. The arbitrator did not properly interrogate the alleged rule, and the evidence did not demonstrate a breach of any reasonable or known rule. The dismissal was therefore unjustified. The Labour Court erred in assuming the rule was common cause. Given the absence of intolerability or impracticability, reinstatement is warranted. The delays in prosecution were minor and satisfactorily explained. Costs are awarded to the appellant, except for condonation applications.

Citation
[2016] ZALAC 67
Parties
Appellant: Matlotleng Gerald Dikobe; Respondent: David Mouton, N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sun International t/a Sun City
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2016
Case Number
JA 45/2015
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Refusing Review and Setting Aside of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; arbitration award set aside; appellant reinstated with retrospective effect and costs awarded.
Judges
Ndlovu, Sutherland, Murphy
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Workplace Rules, Reinstatement, Condonation, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Workplace Rules Reinstatement Condonation Arbitration Review

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

Parties

Matlotleng Gerald Dikobe

Appellant

David Mouton, N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sun International t/a Sun City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Refusing Review and Setting Aside of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the appellant breach a valid and reasonable workplace rule regarding possession and use of VIP vouchers?
  2. 2 Was the dismissal of the appellant substantively and procedurally fair?
  3. 3 Was the arbitration award reasonable in its findings and sanction?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the employer failed to prove the existence, content, scope, and effective communication of any workplace rule prohibiting the appellant's conduct. The arbitrator did not properly interrogate the alleged rule, and the evidence did not demonstrate a breach of any reasonable or known rule. The dismissal was therefore unjustified. The Labour Court erred in assuming the rule was common cause. Given the absence of intolerability or impracticability, reinstatement is warranted. The delays in prosecution were minor and satisfactorily explained. Costs are awarded to the appellant, except for condonation applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; arbitration award set aside; appellant reinstated with retrospective effect and costs awarded.

Orders

  • Condonation of the failure to comply with the rules of the court is granted.
  • The lapsed appeal is reinstated.