Griessel v Trade Kings (Pty) Ltd (JS 65/2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 148 (6 May 2015)

Griessel v Trade Kings (Pty) Ltd (JS 65/2012) [2015] ZALCJHB 148 (6 May 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a credible possibility that his dismissal was due to lodging grievances or referring disputes to the CCMA. The evidence showed that the dominant or most likely reason for dismissal was performance-related issues, not the exercise of protected rights. The respondent made reasonable attempts to address the applicant's complaints, but the applicant frustrated these efforts and sought to terminate the employment relationship on his own terms, including making threats regarding confidential information. The charges against the applicant were based on factual performance issues, some predating the grievances. The claim of discrimination...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 148
Parties
Applicant: Benjamin Quinton Griessel; Respondent: Trade Kings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2015
Case Number
JS 65/2012
Procedural Posture
Automatically Unfair Dismissal Claim / Trial and Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal is dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Unfair Discrimination, Internal Grievance Procedure, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Performance Management
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Unfair Discrimination Internal Grievance Procedure Jurisdiction of Labour Court Performance Management

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Quinton Griessel

Applicant

Trade Kings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatically Unfair Dismissal Claim / Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 187(1) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the lodging of grievances and referral of disputes to the CCMA was the dominant or most likely cause of the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary hearing and dismissal were substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a credible possibility that his dismissal was due to lodging grievances or referring disputes to the CCMA. The evidence showed that the dominant or most likely reason for dismissal was performance-related issues, not the exercise of protected rights. The respondent made reasonable attempts to address the applicant's complaints, but the applicant frustrated these efforts and sought to terminate the employment relationship on his own terms, including making threats regarding confidential information. The charges against the applicant were based on factual performance issues, some predating the grievances. The claim of discrimination...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim of an automatically unfair dismissal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.