Mathews v Hutchinson and Others (J362/98) [1998] ZALC 27 (12 June 1998)

Mathews v Hutchinson and Others (J362/98) [1998] ZALC 27 (12 June 1998)

The court found that the commissioner committed several misdirections in evaluating the evidence, including misunderstanding who was responsible for the float when the money went missing, failing to consider the usual practices followed by the applicant, and relying on incomplete and unreliable evidence. The applicant was found to have been negligent by not checking the cash herself and relying on another employee, but the dismissal was disproportionate given her length of service and the absence of consideration for alternative sanctions. The arbitration award was set aside and substituted with a final written warning and reinstatement, subject to the applicant making good the loss.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 27
Parties
Applicant: Maria Mathews; Respondent: Adv W Hutchinson; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Woolworths Stores
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 1998
Case Number
J362/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; applicant reinstated with a final written warning and ordered to make good the loss.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Negligence, Remedies for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Negligence Remedies for Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Maria Mathews

Applicant

Adv W Hutchinson

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Woolworths Stores

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner misdirected himself in evaluating the evidence regarding the alleged negligence and dismissal of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct constituted negligence warranting dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner committed several misdirections in evaluating the evidence, including misunderstanding who was responsible for the float when the money went missing, failing to consider the usual practices followed by the applicant, and relying on incomplete and unreliable evidence. The applicant was found to have been negligent by not checking the cash herself and relying on another employee, but the dismissal was disproportionate given her length of service and the absence of consideration for alternative sanctions. The arbitration award was set aside and substituted with a final written warning and reinstatement, subject to the applicant making good the loss.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; applicant reinstated with a final written warning and ordered to make good the loss.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside.
  • The applicant is found guilty of negligence and given a final written warning.