EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA4/18) [2019] ZALAC 57; (2019) 40 ILJ 2477 (LAC); [2019] 12 BLLR 1304 (LAC) (15 August 2019)

EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA4/18) [2019] ZALAC 57; (2019) 40 ILJ 2477 (LAC); [2019] 12 BLLR 1304 (LAC) (15 August 2019)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the commissioner’s finding that negligence was not a competent verdict under the charge was a material error of law and unreasonable. The Court found that the disciplinary charge, although framed in terms of dishonesty, encompassed the unauthorised distribution of intellectual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZALAC 57
Parties
Appellant: EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Bongani Khumalo N.O.; Respondent: Brett Danney
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Case Number
JA4/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; dismissal of the third respondent declared substantively and procedurally fair.
Judges
Waglay, Murphy, Savage
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Procedure, Gross Negligence, Intellectual Property in Employment
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Procedure Gross Negligence Intellectual Property in Employment

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

Parties

EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Bongani Khumalo N.O.

Respondent

Brett Danney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in finding that negligence was not a competent verdict on the disciplinary charge.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee for gross negligence was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the employee was prejudiced by the characterisation of the charge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the commissioner’s finding that negligence was not a competent verdict under the charge was a material error of law and unreasonable. The Court found that the disciplinary charge, although framed in terms of dishonesty, encompassed the unauthorised distribution of intellectual property, and Danney was adequately informed of the case he had to meet. There is no requirement that competent verdicts be specified in the charge sheet, provided the employee is not prejudiced. The evidence established that Danney was at least negligent in distributing valuable intellectual property of a client to an acquaintance, and his conduct justified the loss of trust and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court judgment set aside; dismissal of the third respondent declared substantively and procedurally fair.

Orders

  • The award issued by the second respondent on 13 April 2012 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dismissal of the third respondent is declared to have been both substantively and procedurally fair.