Geerdts v Multichoice Africa (Pty) Ltd (JA88/97) [1998] ZALAC 10 (29 June 1998)

Geerdts v Multichoice Africa (Pty) Ltd (JA88/97) [1998] ZALAC 10 (29 June 1998)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant intentionally recorded the confidential meeting, rejecting her version as implausible and unsupported by evidence. The court held that the disciplinary and internal procedures were fair, and that the appellant had waived her right to an internal appeal by pursuing statutory remedies. The appellant's conduct, including unfounded attacks on Scholtz and the industrial court, justified the costs order on the High Court scale and warranted attorney and client costs on appeal. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Citation
[1998] ZALAC 10
Parties
Appellant: Petro Magda Geerdts; Respondent: Multichoice Africa (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 1998
Case Number
JA88/97
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Decision Refusing Reinstatement and Awarding Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Nicholson, Myburgh, Froneman
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Labour Practice, Electronic Surveillance, Right to Privacy, Costs Award, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Delict Unfair Dismissal Unfair Labour Practice Electronic Surveillance Right to Privacy Costs Award Disciplinary Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petro Magda Geerdts

Appellant

Multichoice Africa (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Court Decision Refusing Reinstatement and Awarding Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's dismissal constituted an unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary and internal appeal procedures were procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant intentionally recorded a confidential business meeting.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant intentionally recorded the confidential meeting, rejecting her version as implausible and unsupported by evidence. The court held that the disciplinary and internal procedures were fair, and that the appellant had waived her right to an internal appeal by pursuing statutory remedies. The appellant's conduct, including unfounded attacks on Scholtz and the industrial court, justified the costs order on the High Court scale and warranted attorney and client costs on appeal. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the attorney and client scale.