Halstead And Company v McKerrow (JR1431/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 271 (15 July 2014)

Halstead And Company v McKerrow (JR1431/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 271 (15 July 2014)

The court found that the commissioner’s findings of procedural and substantive unfairness were not supported by the evidence. The respondent was medically assessed and found fit for work, and he himself denied that his poor performance was due to ill health. The applicant followed the correct procedures for poor work performance, provided support and reasonable time for improvement, and did not act unfairly. The failure to open a branch in Springbok was not part of any agreement and was irrelevant to the assessment of fairness. The commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach, and the award was therefore reviewed and set aside. The respondent’s...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 271
Parties
Applicant: Halstead And Company; Respondent: Alexander Bruce McKerrow
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2014
Case Number
JR1431/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The respondent's dismissal was found to be fair and his case dismissed.
Judges
Shai
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Poor Work Performance, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Poor Work Performance Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halstead And Company

Applicant

Alexander Bruce McKerrow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal of the respondent to be procedurally and substantively unfair was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant failed to investigate the respondent's alleged incapacity due to ill health.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was afforded sufficient time and support to improve his work performance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner’s findings of procedural and substantive unfairness were not supported by the evidence. The respondent was medically assessed and found fit for work, and he himself denied that his poor performance was due to ill health. The applicant followed the correct procedures for poor work performance, provided support and reasonable time for improvement, and did not act unfairly. The failure to open a branch in Springbok was not part of any agreement and was irrelevant to the assessment of fairness. The commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach, and the award was therefore reviewed and set aside. The respondent’s...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was reviewed and set aside. The respondent's dismissal was found to be fair and his case dismissed.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued on 17 May 2012 under case number MC 2333-11 is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is ordered that the respondent's dismissal was fair in all respects and his case is dismissed.