Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd v Gunn and Others (JR3095/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 371 (30 September 2014)

Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd v Gunn and Others (JR3095/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 371 (30 September 2014)

The court found that the Applicant's attempt to distance itself from the actions of its employee was irresponsible. The Commissioner was entitled to accept the First Respondent's version that he reported Star Crow's refusal to sign invoices, yet the Applicant continued to authorise deliveries. The evidence that the Applicant's manager handled Star Crow's account differently and continued to authorise purchases was undisputed. The Commissioner was justified in relying on the evidence that the Applicant demanded payment for goods not ordered by Star Crow and failed to act when informed of the refusal to sign. The award was found to be reasonable and supported by the material before the...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 371
Parties
Applicant: Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harry Arthur Gunn; Respondent: Sello Naniso N O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2014
Case Number
JR3095/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Negligence, Employer Liability
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Gross Negligence Employer Liability

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

Parties

Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Harry Arthur Gunn

Respondent

Sello Naniso N O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant, as employer, is responsible for the actions of its employee executed during the course of employment.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the First Respondent was substantively unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant's attempt to distance itself from the actions of its employee was irresponsible. The Commissioner was entitled to accept the First Respondent's version that he reported Star Crow's refusal to sign invoices, yet the Applicant continued to authorise deliveries. The evidence that the Applicant's manager handled Star Crow's account differently and continued to authorise purchases was undisputed. The Commissioner was justified in relying on the evidence that the Applicant demanded payment for goods not ordered by Star Crow and failed to act when informed of the refusal to sign. The award was found to be reasonable and supported by the material before the...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award upheld.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No costs order is made.