Mulholland v CCMA and Others (C18/2017) [2017] ZALCCT 51 (2 November 2017)

Mulholland v CCMA and Others (C18/2017) [2017] ZALCCT 51 (2 November 2017)

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because the South African employer remedied the procedural irregularity of the German dismissal by convening a proper disciplinary hearing in South Africa, which the applicant attended and participated in. The allegations of misconduct in South Africa were sufficiently distinct from those in Germany, negating the double jeopardy argument. The arbitrator acted within his discretion in admitting hearsay evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to challenge it but elected not to do so. The applicant was not entitled to nine months' notice pay due to summary dismissal for gross misconduct, as provided for in...

Citation
[2017] ZALCCT 51
Parties
Applicant: Mark James Mulholland; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: David Wilson N.O.; Respondent: D6hler South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Case Number
C 18/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Double Jeopardy, Hearsay Evidence, Summary Dismissal, Bonus Entitlement
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Ccma Double Jeopardy Hearsay Evidence Summary Dismissal Bonus Entitlement

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark James Mulholland

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

David Wilson N.O.

Respondent

D6hler South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dismissal of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary hearing and dismissal in South Africa constituted double jeopardy.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator erred in admitting and relying on hearsay evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the CCMA had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because the South African employer remedied the procedural irregularity of the German dismissal by convening a proper disciplinary hearing in South Africa, which the applicant attended and participated in. The allegations of misconduct in South Africa were sufficiently distinct from those in Germany, negating the double jeopardy argument. The arbitrator acted within his discretion in admitting hearsay evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to challenge it but elected not to do so. The applicant was not entitled to nine months' notice pay due to summary dismissal for gross misconduct, as provided for in...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.