Nedbank Group v Dlangamandla and Others (JR1145/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 112 (4 April 2023)

Nedbank Group v Dlangamandla and Others (JR1145/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 112 (4 April 2023)

The court held that the Commissioner’s findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. There was no credible evidence that the employee was under the influence of alcohol while at work, as neither witnesses nor medical testing substantiated this allegation. The employer failed to present CCTV footage or risk reports to prove that the employee damaged the boom gate, and the security officials who could have testified were not called. The Commissioner correctly considered the employee’s medical condition and pain as strong mitigating factors, and the employer did not challenge these findings in its grounds of review. The sanction of dismissal was disproportionate given the...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 112
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Group; Respondent: Mzwandile Dlangamandla; Respondent: Faizel Mooi N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2023
Case Number
JR1145/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application is dismissed and the arbitration award reinstating the employee stands.
Judges
VG Mkwibiso
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Mitigating Factors, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Substantive Fairness Mitigating Factors Review of Arbitration Award

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Group

Applicant

Mzwandile Dlangamandla

Respondent

Faizel Mooi N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award reinstating the employee was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the employee was under the influence of alcohol while on duty.
  3. 3 Whether the employee damaged the employer's boom gate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Commissioner’s findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. There was no credible evidence that the employee was under the influence of alcohol while at work, as neither witnesses nor medical testing substantiated this allegation. The employer failed to present CCTV footage or risk reports to prove that the employee damaged the boom gate, and the security officials who could have testified were not called. The Commissioner correctly considered the employee’s medical condition and pain as strong mitigating factors, and the employer did not challenge these findings in its grounds of review. The sanction of dismissal was disproportionate given the...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed and the arbitration award reinstating the employee stands.

Orders

  • The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.