Samson v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D460/08) [2009] ZALC 64; (2010) 31 ILJ 170 (LC) ; [2009] 11 BLLR 1119 (LC) (29 May 2009)

Samson v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D460/08) [2009] ZALC 64; (2010) 31 ILJ 170 (LC) ; [2009] 11 BLLR 1119 (LC) (29 May 2009)

The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and did not disclose any gross irregularity or material error of law. The commissioner correctly distinguished between storing and distributing pornography, finding that the company’s disciplinary code prescribed dismissal for distribution and that previous cases cited by the applicant were not comparable. The commissioner’s acceptance of evidence regarding the company’s practice of reviewing disciplinary decisions was justified, as the applicant failed to challenge this evidence. The applicant was afforded procedural fairness through the right of appeal, and the company’s failure to provide a hearing before the sanction was...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 64
Parties
Applicant: Shaun Samson; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Almeiro Deyzel; Respondent: Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
D460/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disciplinary Code, Consistency of Sanction, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Double Jeopardy
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Disciplinary Code Consistency of Sanction Procedural Fairness Legal Representation Double Jeopardy

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Samson

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Almeiro Deyzel

Respondent

Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was fair for the employer to overturn the sanction imposed by the chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry.
  2. 2 Whether the company followed a fair procedure in deciding to dismiss the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the sanction of dismissal was fair and consistent with previous cases.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner’s award was reasonable and did not disclose any gross irregularity or material error of law. The commissioner correctly distinguished between storing and distributing pornography, finding that the company’s disciplinary code prescribed dismissal for distribution and that previous cases cited by the applicant were not comparable. The commissioner’s acceptance of evidence regarding the company’s practice of reviewing disciplinary decisions was justified, as the applicant failed to challenge this evidence. The applicant was afforded procedural fairness through the right of appeal, and the company’s failure to provide a hearing before the sanction was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.