Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank and Others (DA4/01) [2002] ZALAC 11; [2002] 7 BLLR 600 (LAC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1243 (LAC) (8 May 2002)

Nedcor Bank Ltd v Frank and Others (DA4/01) [2002] ZALAC 11; [2002] 7 BLLR 600 (LAC); (2002) 23 ILJ 1243 (LAC) (8 May 2002)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove dishonesty on the part of the first and second respondents. Their conduct, although irregular, was motivated by a desire to shield the appellant from complaints by airport management and did not involve any intent to deceive, cheat, lie, or act fraudulently against the appellant or its customers. No formal rule prohibited their actions at the time, and no material fact was concealed from the appellant. The trust relationship was not destroyed, and the arbitrator and Labour Court were correct in finding the dismissals unfair. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2002] ZALAC 11
Parties
Appellant: Nedcor Bank Ltd; Respondent: Cyril Frank; Respondent: Kovilan Sarugaser; Respondent: SASBO; Respondent: Commissioner S.M. Govender; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2002
Case Number
DA4/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N.P. Willis, R.M.M. Zondo, D. van Reenen
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Dishonesty in Employment, Review of Arbitration Award, Trust Relationship, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Dishonesty in Employment Review of Arbitration Award Trust Relationship Disciplinary Procedure

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedcor Bank Ltd

Appellant

Cyril Frank

Respondent

Kovilan Sarugaser

Respondent

SASBO

Respondent

Commissioner S.M. Govender

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the first and second respondents constituted dishonesty justifying dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved dishonesty or breach of trust sufficient to destroy the employment relationship.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator and Labour Court erred in finding the dismissals unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove dishonesty on the part of the first and second respondents. Their conduct, although irregular, was motivated by a desire to shield the appellant from complaints by airport management and did not involve any intent to deceive, cheat, lie, or act fraudulently against the appellant or its customers. No formal rule prohibited their actions at the time, and no material fact was concealed from the appellant. The trust relationship was not destroyed, and the arbitrator and Labour Court were correct in finding the dismissals unfair. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.