Nkgwang v CCMA and Others (C289/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 93 (1 December 2021)

Nkgwang v CCMA and Others (C289/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 93 (1 December 2021)

The court found that none of the applicant’s review grounds established a basis for interfering with the commissioner’s award. The commissioner was not unduly influenced by a previous commissioner, and the disciplinary clause applied to conduct outside the workplace as it affected Eskom’s interests. Alleged procedural irregularities and inconsistencies were either immaterial or unsupported by the record. The commissioner properly addressed the issue of consistency and distinguished the applicant’s case from others. The grievance and disciplinary procedures were followed, and the applicant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The commissioner’s decision was reasonable and...

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 93
Parties
Applicant: Iteseng Joseph Nkgwang; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Marina Terblanche; Respondent: Eskom Holdings Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Case Number
C289/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review Application
Outcome
The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Conradie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Social Media Misconduct, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Consistency in Discipline
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Social Media Misconduct Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Consistency in Discipline

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iteseng Joseph Nkgwang

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Marina Terblanche

Respondent

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner’s award was reviewable on the grounds raised by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether derogatory comments made by the employee on social media outside working hours justified dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary and grievance procedures were properly followed and consistently applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the applicant’s review grounds established a basis for interfering with the commissioner’s award. The commissioner was not unduly influenced by a previous commissioner, and the disciplinary clause applied to conduct outside the workplace as it affected Eskom’s interests. Alleged procedural irregularities and inconsistencies were either immaterial or unsupported by the record. The commissioner properly addressed the issue of consistency and distinguished the applicant’s case from others. The grievance and disciplinary procedures were followed, and the applicant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. The commissioner’s decision was reasonable and...

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.