Mhlongo v South African Revenue Service (JA3/16) [2017] ZALAC 15; (2017) 38 ILJ 1334 (LAC); [2017] 9 BLLR 859 (LAC) (16 February 2017)

Mhlongo v South African Revenue Service (JA3/16) [2017] ZALAC 15; (2017) 38 ILJ 1334 (LAC); [2017] 9 BLLR 859 (LAC) (16 February 2017)

The Labour Appeal Court held that even if the disciplinary code formed part of the appellant's contract, the evidence regarding her suspension was mutually destructive and, in motion proceedings, the employer's version must prevail. The employer took reasonable steps to notify the appellant of her required return to work and impending dismissal, and the appellant failed to respond or appeal internally. The dismissal was in accordance with the employment agreement and applicable policies. The Labour Court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, but no purpose would be served by remitting the matter, as the appellant failed to establish a breach of contract or entitlement to reinstatement.

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 15
Parties
Appellant: Charlotte C Mhlongo; Respondent: South African Revenue Service
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2017
Case Number
JA3/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Waglay JP, Coppin JA, Phatshoane AJA
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Employment Contract, Disciplinary Code, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Breach of Employment Contract Disciplinary Code Jurisdiction of Labour Court 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte C Mhlongo

Appellant

South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached the employment contract by suspending and dismissing the appellant without following the disciplinary code.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under the BCEA or whether it was an unfair dismissal dispute under the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant made out a case for specific performance and reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that even if the disciplinary code formed part of the appellant's contract, the evidence regarding her suspension was mutually destructive and, in motion proceedings, the employer's version must prevail. The employer took reasonable steps to notify the appellant of her required return to work and impending dismissal, and the appellant failed to respond or appeal internally. The dismissal was in accordance with the employment agreement and applicable policies. The Labour Court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, but no purpose would be served by remitting the matter, as the appellant failed to establish a breach of contract or entitlement to reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.