Johnson v Rajah NO and Others (JR33/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 25 (26 January 2017)

Johnson v Rajah NO and Others (JR33/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 25 (26 January 2017)

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving constructive dismissal. The employer accommodated her medical restrictions by providing a suitable office and allowing half-day work as recommended by her doctor. The applicant did not file a formal grievance or otherwise afford the employer an opportunity to address her complaints before resigning. The arbitrator correctly found that the applicant resigned voluntarily and that the employer's conduct did not render continued employment intolerable. The grounds for review based on reasonableness were rejected, as the applicable test was correctness. The application for review was dismissed, and costs were awarded...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 25
Parties
Applicant: Eltia Johnson; Respondent: Mahamed Rajah N.O.; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Malesela Taihan Electric (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Case Number
JR33/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof, Internal Grievance Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constructive Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof Internal Grievance 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eltia Johnson

Applicant

Mahamed Rajah N.O.

Respondent

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Malesela Taihan Electric (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was constructively dismissed by the employer.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator correctly found that the applicant resigned and was not dismissed.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to file a formal grievance precluded a finding of constructive dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving constructive dismissal. The employer accommodated her medical restrictions by providing a suitable office and allowing half-day work as recommended by her doctor. The applicant did not file a formal grievance or otherwise afford the employer an opportunity to address her complaints before resigning. The arbitrator correctly found that the applicant resigned voluntarily and that the employer's conduct did not render continued employment intolerable. The grounds for review based on reasonableness were rejected, as the applicable test was correctness. The application for review was dismissed, and costs were awarded...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with cost.
  • The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on 13 October 2016 are to be paid by Mothuloe Attorneys.