Foschini Group v Maidi and Others (JR 1996/03) [2008] ZALC 77 (22 February 2008)

Foschini Group v Maidi and Others (JR 1996/03) [2008] ZALC 77 (22 February 2008)

The court found that the commissioner failed to properly address the hearsay nature and reliability of the stock loss report, which was central to the applicant's case. The evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to prove the alleged misconduct, and the dismissal of the first respondent was procedurally unfair due to the absence of a disciplinary hearing. The applicant's grounds for leave to appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZALC 77
Parties
Applicant: The Foschini Group; Respondent: Mabel Maidi; Respondent: Eunice Khunou; Respondent: Susan Masilo; Respondent: Boya Shibe; Respondent: Mirriam Mokehene; Respondent: Commissioner Eric Louw; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Case Number
JR 1996/03
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following a Review Judgment Remitting the Matter for De Novo Arbitration.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Hearing, Admissibility of Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Hearing Admissibility of Evidence Review of Arbitration 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Foschini Group

Applicant

Mabel Maidi

Respondent

Eunice Khunou

Respondent

Susan Masilo

Respondent

Boya Shibe

Respondent

Mirriam Mokehene

Respondent

Commissioner Eric Louw

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following a Review Judgment Remitting the Matter for De Novo Arbitration.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the review and remittal of the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner properly dealt with the hearsay nature and reliability of the stock loss report.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the first respondent was procedurally fair given the absence of a disciplinary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner failed to properly address the hearsay nature and reliability of the stock loss report, which was central to the applicant's case. The evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to prove the alleged misconduct, and the dismissal of the first respondent was procedurally unfair due to the absence of a disciplinary hearing. The applicant's grounds for leave to appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.