Mohlake v Shadlow NO and Others (JR 1282/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 132 (23 June 2011)

Mohlake v Shadlow NO and Others (JR 1282/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 132 (23 June 2011)

The court found that the applicant admitted to breaching a known company rule by consuming company property without payment. The evidence showed that the respondent applied its disciplinary code consistently, as other employees who committed similar offences were also dismissed. The arbitrator's reasoning was upheld, as the difference in seriousness between the applicant's misconduct and that of Ms Thipe justified different sanctions. The court held that the arbitrator did not misdirect himself or commit any irregularity, and the decision to uphold the dismissal fell within the band of reasonableness required by law. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 132
Parties
Applicant: Nancy Mohlake; Respondent: John Shadlow N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Pick n’ Pay
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Case Number
JR 1282/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; arbitration award upholding dismissal confirmed.
Judges
Cawe N
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Misconduct, Disciplinary Consistency, Review of Arbitration Award, Labour Relations Act, Sanction Fairness
Labour Law Dismissal for Misconduct Disciplinary Consistency Review of Arbitration Award Labour Relations Act Sanction 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Mohlake

Applicant

John Shadlow N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Pick n’ Pay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal for unauthorised consumption of company property was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of dismissal was inconsistent with sanctions imposed on other employees for similar misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award upholding the dismissal was reviewable under section 145 and/or 158 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant admitted to breaching a known company rule by consuming company property without payment. The evidence showed that the respondent applied its disciplinary code consistently, as other employees who committed similar offences were also dismissed. The arbitrator's reasoning was upheld, as the difference in seriousness between the applicant's misconduct and that of Ms Thipe justified different sanctions. The court held that the arbitrator did not misdirect himself or commit any irregularity, and the decision to uphold the dismissal fell within the band of reasonableness required by law. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; arbitration award upholding dismissal confirmed.

Orders

  • The point in limine raised by the respondent is dismissed.
  • The review application is dismissed.