Max Models CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C985/2014) [2016] ZALCCT 22 (2 February 2016)

Max Models CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C985/2014) [2016] ZALCCT 22 (2 February 2016)

The court found that the commissioner correctly applied the legal principles regarding the employer's right to remedy a procedurally unfair dismissal. The offer of re-instatement made by the applicant was not genuine or reasonable, and the employee was justified in rejecting it. The applicant failed to lead evidence to support its case, and the employee's evidence was credible and uncontroverted. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, and the award of three months' compensation was just and equitable given the circumstances, including the breakdown of the trust relationship and the employee's subsequent loss of earnings. The commissioner's award was reasonable and...

Citation
[2016] ZALCCT 22
Parties
Applicant: Max Models CC; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: John M Brown N.O.; Respondent: Stephanie Peters
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2016
Case Number
C985/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
TC Ralehoko
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Poor Work Performance, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Right to Right a Wrong, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Poor Work Performance Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Right to Right a Wrong Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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

Parties

Max Models CC

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

John M Brown N.O.

Respondent

Stephanie Peters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner misapplied the law regarding the employer's right to remedy a procedurally unfair dismissal through re-instatement.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee was substantively and procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the award of compensation to the employee was justified given the rejection of the offer of re-instatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner correctly applied the legal principles regarding the employer's right to remedy a procedurally unfair dismissal. The offer of re-instatement made by the applicant was not genuine or reasonable, and the employee was justified in rejecting it. The applicant failed to lead evidence to support its case, and the employee's evidence was credible and uncontroverted. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, and the award of three months' compensation was just and equitable given the circumstances, including the breakdown of the trust relationship and the employee's subsequent loss of earnings. The commissioner's award was reasonable and...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's costs, including the costs of counsel.