Fletcher v Stemmet NO and Others (JR2603/08) [2012] ZALCJHB 31 (14 March 2012)

Fletcher v Stemmet NO and Others (JR2603/08) [2012] ZALCJHB 31 (14 March 2012)

The court held that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable. The applicant’s refusal to work with Ms Makgoba was established on the balance of probabilities, and the buying procedure was well known. The finding regarding the racist remark was corroborated by independent witnesses, and the applicant’s explanations were not plausible. The email sent to the client was objectively intended to bring pressure on the employer and was not justified by the circumstances. Regarding procedural fairness, the applicant was given notice and an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary hearing but refused to do so and did not request a postponement or...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 31
Parties
Applicant: John Maurice Fletcher; Respondent: Jan Stemmet N.O.; Respondent: Famsystems (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (Gauteng)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Case Number
JR2603/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
St Elmo Wilken
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Gross Irregularity, Reasonableness of Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Gross Irregularity Reasonableness of Award

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Maurice Fletcher

Applicant

Jan Stemmet N.O.

Respondent

Famsystems (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council (Gauteng)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the applicant's dismissal to be procedurally and substantively fair was unreasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner committed a gross irregularity in evaluating the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair due to insufficient time to prepare for the disciplinary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable. The applicant’s refusal to work with Ms Makgoba was established on the balance of probabilities, and the buying procedure was well known. The finding regarding the racist remark was corroborated by independent witnesses, and the applicant’s explanations were not plausible. The email sent to the client was objectively intended to bring pressure on the employer and was not justified by the circumstances. Regarding procedural fairness, the applicant was given notice and an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary hearing but refused to do so and did not request a postponement or...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.