Lloyd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J4656/99) [2001] ZALC 92; [2001] 9 BLLR 1072 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1832 (LC) (20 June 2001)

Lloyd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J4656/99) [2001] ZALC 92; [2001] 9 BLLR 1072 (LC); (2001) 22 ILJ 1832 (LC) (20 June 2001)

The Labour Court found that the disciplinary procedure followed by the third respondent did not comply with the collective agreement incorporated in the applicant's conditions of employment. The accusation against the applicant was not made in writing by the complainant, nor was the complainant identified, as required by the agreement. The subsequent investigation and disciplinary charges were based on an attorney's report rather than a proper written accusation. Furthermore, the appeal process was irregular, as no prosecutor was appointed and the hearing was delayed beyond the prescribed period. These procedural defects rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. However, the court found...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 92
Parties
Applicant: Leon Lloyd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Richard Byrne; Respondent: Highveld District Council
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2001
Case Number
J4656/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award's finding of procedural fairness, substituted a finding of procedural unfairness, and ordered compensation to the applicant equivalent to twelve months' remuneration.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Procedure, Collective Agreement, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Procedure Collective Agreement Review of Arbitration Award

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

Parties

Leon Lloyd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Richard Byrne

Respondent

Highveld District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary procedure followed in dismissing the applicant complied with the applicable collective agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award correctly applied the law regarding procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the disciplinary procedure followed by the third respondent did not comply with the collective agreement incorporated in the applicant's conditions of employment. The accusation against the applicant was not made in writing by the complainant, nor was the complainant identified, as required by the agreement. The subsequent investigation and disciplinary charges were based on an attorney's report rather than a proper written accusation. Furthermore, the appeal process was irregular, as no prosecutor was appointed and the hearing was delayed beyond the prescribed period. These procedural defects rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. However, the court found...

Court Disposition

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award's finding of procedural fairness, substituted a finding of procedural unfairness, and ordered compensation to the applicant equivalent to twelve months' remuneration.

Orders

  • The finding of procedural fairness in the arbitration award is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is substituted with a finding that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.