Gauteng Department of Education v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1564/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 33 (27 February 2019)
The court found that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by considering the substantive fairness of the dismissal rather than limiting his inquiry to the appropriateness of the sanction. While Mr Kruger’s conduct contributed to the employment of a ghost employee and financial loss, the court held that all relevant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZALCJHB 33
- Parties
- Applicant: Gauteng Department of Education; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Fuzile Maloyi NO; Respondent: SAOU obo Kruger MJ
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 1564/18
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Review application granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted with reinstatement and a final written warning.
- Judges
- L Raphulu
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Sanction Appropriateness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gauteng Department of Education
Applicant
General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council
Respondent
Fuzile Maloyi NO
Respondent
SAOU obo Kruger MJ
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct or a gross irregularity in the arbitration proceedings.
- 2 Whether the sanction of dismissal imposed on Mr Kruger was appropriate under the circumstances.
- 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by considering the substantive fairness of the dismissal rather than limiting his inquiry to the appropriateness of the sanction. While Mr Kruger’s conduct contributed to the employment of a ghost employee and financial loss, the court held that all relevant circumstances—including his clean disciplinary record, his admission of guilt, and his remorse—rendered dismissal too harsh. The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside, and substituted with reinstatement and a final written warning.
Court Disposition
Review application granted; arbitration award set aside and substituted with reinstatement and a final written warning.
Orders
- The applicant’s review application is granted.
- The arbitration award of the second respondent, Fuzile Maloyi N.O., dated 3 June 2018 and issued under case number GPBC 1522/2017, is reviewed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
case No: JR 1564/18
In the matter between:
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applicant
And
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL
First Respondent
FUZILE MALOYI NO
Second Respondent
SAOU OBO KRUGER MJ
Third Respondent
Heard: 7 February 2019
Delivered: 27 February 2019
Summary: Application to review and set aside arbitration award
JUDGMENT
RAPHULU, AJ
Introduction
[1] Mr Kruger, on behalf of whom the third respondent acts, was dismissed for misconduct in the form of gross negligence, in that he signed the applicant’s HR7 employee form without checking it, which led to a ghost employee being hired and paid, leading to financial loss for the applicant.
[2] Mr Kruger was charged with gross negligence for his actions. He pleaded guilty to the charges. The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings was his dismissal, both at the initial proceedings, and on appeal.
[3] Mr Kruger was unhappy over the sanction and therefore referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the first respondent, wherein the only consideration before the arbitrator was the appropriateness of sanction.
[4] The second respondent found that Mr Kruger’s dismissal was substantively unfair, had retrospectively reinstated him, and awarded him 10 (ten) months’ compensation. The applicant has applied to have the arbitration award reviewed and set aside, on the basis that the second respondent conducted a misconduct, alternatively a gross
irregularity.
Analysis
[5] I have considered the arbitration award and the applicant’s submissions as to why it contends that the second respondent conducted a misconduct, alternatively a gross irregularity, and I am in agreement with the applicant in that regard. I am of the view that the decision of the second respondent is not one that a reasonable decision maker could arrive at, in that the second respondent went far beyond his mandate of examining the sanction, and went on his own
trajectory, interrogating the substantive fairness of the dismissal and coming up with his own reasons as to why Mr Kruger did what he did.
[6] I have considered the applicant’s submissions that the ghost employee would not have been employed but for Mr Kruger’s conduct, that financial losses were incurred as a result of Mr Kruger’s negligence (admittedly not all directly attributable to Mr Kruger), that the parity rule shows that employees who were found guilty of misconduct similar to Mr Kruger’s were dismissed.
[7] I have also considered the third respondent’s submissions on the individual circumstances of Mr Kruger, having been new to the responsibility of the appointment of educators, the period of his
absence for annual leave and sick leave immediately before the incident in question, his 20 year clean disciplinary record, his
having pleaded guilty to the charges and having shown remorse at the disciplinary proceedings.
[8] It is trite law that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account in deciding if the employer’s sanction decision is fair. Bearing all relevant circumstances in mind, I am of the view that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh.
[9] In the premises, I make the following order:
Order
1. The applicant’s review application is granted;
2. The arbitration award of the second respondent, Fuzile Maloyi N.O., dated 3 June 2018 and issued under case number GPBC 1522/2017, is reviewed and set aside;
3. The arbitration award of the second respondent is substituted with an award that dismissal was too harsh a sanction, that Mr Kruger be reinstated and be given a final written warning;
4. There is no order as to costs.
_______________________
L Raphulu
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa.
Appearances
For the Applicant: Advocate N Thokoane
Instructed by:
The Office of the State Attorney
For the Third Respondent: Advocate G vd Westhuizen
Instructed by:
Erasmus Attorneys