Edcon Limited v Padayachee and Others (J331/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 307 (20 September 2018)

Edcon Limited v Padayachee and Others (J331/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 307 (20 September 2018)

The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent was incompatible and that her conduct was the cause of disharmony in the workplace. The procedures followed by the applicant focused on poor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 307
Parties
Applicant: Edcon Limited; Respondent: Keshia Mohammed-Padayachee; Respondent: Commissioner Mqingwana N.O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
J331/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application
Outcome
Review application dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Incompatibility, Arbitration Review, Remedy of Reinstatement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Incompatibility Arbitration Review Remedy of Reinstatement

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edcon Limited

Applicant

Keshia Mohammed-Padayachee

Respondent

Commissioner Mqingwana N.O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal of the first respondent substantively and procedurally unfair is reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved incompatibility as a fair reason for dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the remedy of reinstatement with backpay was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent was incompatible and that her conduct was the cause of disharmony in the workplace. The procedures followed by the applicant focused on poor performance and misconduct rather than incompatibility, which was the stated reason for dismissal. The commissioner correctly found both substantive and procedural unfairness. The remedy of reinstatement with backpay was appropriate, as there was no sufficient evidence that the employment relationship was irreparably broken or intolerable.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs.