Hicor t/a Audio Vision v Abramms and Another (C281/97) [1998] ZALC 19 (1 June 1998)

Hicor t/a Audio Vision v Abramms and Another (C281/97) [1998] ZALC 19 (1 June 1998)

The court found that the Commissioner was justified in concluding that the dismissal of the second respondent was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The Commissioner was not at fault for disregarding Mr Potash's affidavit as hearsay, given that the applicant's representative was warned and failed to ensure Mr Potash's attendance. The disciplinary inquiry was unfair because the chairperson made findings based on hearsay evidence and disregarded unchallenged direct evidence from the second respondent. The employer bore the onus to prove the fairness of the dismissal and failed to do so. The compensation awarded was appropriate under the circumstances, as the unfairness related to...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 19
Parties
Applicant: Hicor t/a Audio Vision; Respondent: A Twigg N.O.; Respondent: Brian Jeffrey Abrahams
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1998
Case Number
C281/97
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing Argument
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Zondo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Inquiry, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Inquiry Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Arbitration Review

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hicor t/a Audio Vision

Applicant

A Twigg N.O.

Respondent

Brian Jeffrey Abrahams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal of the second respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner erred in disregarding the affidavit of Mr Potash as hearsay evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted fairly, particularly regarding the absence of direct evidence from Mr Potash.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner was justified in concluding that the dismissal of the second respondent was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The Commissioner was not at fault for disregarding Mr Potash's affidavit as hearsay, given that the applicant's representative was warned and failed to ensure Mr Potash's attendance. The disciplinary inquiry was unfair because the chairperson made findings based on hearsay evidence and disregarded unchallenged direct evidence from the second respondent. The employer bore the onus to prove the fairness of the dismissal and failed to do so. The compensation awarded was appropriate under the circumstances, as the unfairness related to...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed with costs.