Ramatsekane v National Transport Movement and Others (C353/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 79 (27 October 2021)

Ramatsekane v National Transport Movement and Others (C353/2018) [2021] ZALCCT 79 (27 October 2021)

The court found that the Commissioner failed to properly address disputes of fact and credibility, particularly regarding the applicant's alleged abscondment and the union's inconsistent documentation. The evidence showed that the applicant was suffering from bipolar disorder and was medically booked off during the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 79
Parties
Applicant: Palesa Dorris Ramatsekane; Respondent: National Transport Movement; Respondent: Marina Terblanche; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Case Number
C353/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The review application succeeds in part. The dismissal of the applicant is found to be substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Disciplinary Procedure, Mental Health in Employment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Disciplinary Procedure Mental Health in Employment

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palesa Dorris Ramatsekane

Applicant

National Transport Movement

Respondent

Marina Terblanche

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner properly considered the evidence regarding the applicant's alleged abscondment and fraud.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary process followed by the union met the requirements of procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner failed to properly address disputes of fact and credibility, particularly regarding the applicant's alleged abscondment and the union's inconsistent documentation. The evidence showed that the applicant was suffering from bipolar disorder and was medically booked off during the relevant period, undermining the charge of abscondment. The union's own suspension letter prohibited her from entering the workplace, further negating the claim that she failed to report for duty. Regarding the fraud charge, the court accepted that the applicant had provided her personal bank account details to a potential member, but found that the charge related to the...

Court Disposition

The review application succeeds in part. The dismissal of the applicant is found to be substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness.

Orders

  • The arbitration award under case number FSBF3321-17 is reviewed and set aside and substituted as follows:
  • The dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair but procedurally unfair.