Ngobese and Others v Van Zyl and Others (D196/01) [2003] ZALC 23 (27 February 2003)

Ngobese and Others v Van Zyl and Others (D196/01) [2003] ZALC 23 (27 February 2003)

The court found that the Commissioner had properly considered the evidence regarding the stock loss norm, the implementation of the stock loss plan, and the alleged causes of shrinkage. The applicants failed to implement the agreed plan and did not provide sufficient evidence that overwork, insufficient staff, administrative failures, or theft by outsiders were the main causes of the losses. The Commissioner was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and reject the applicants' submissions. The grounds of review raised by the applicants did not establish gross irregularity or misdirection sufficient to set aside the arbitration award.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 23
Parties
Applicant: Iris Ngobese and Four Others; Respondent: Philip Van Zyl and Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Case Number
D196/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Stock Loss Norms, Employee Misconduct
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Stock Loss Norms Employee Misconduct

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iris Ngobese and Four Others

Applicant

Philip Van Zyl and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner committed gross irregularity in confirming the dismissal of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the stock loss norm of 2% was properly agreed and applied.
  3. 3 Whether the cause of shrinkage was beyond the applicants' control due to overwork and insufficient staff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner had properly considered the evidence regarding the stock loss norm, the implementation of the stock loss plan, and the alleged causes of shrinkage. The applicants failed to implement the agreed plan and did not provide sufficient evidence that overwork, insufficient staff, administrative failures, or theft by outsiders were the main causes of the losses. The Commissioner was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and reject the applicants' submissions. The grounds of review raised by the applicants did not establish gross irregularity or misdirection sufficient to set aside the arbitration award.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.