Sanny v Van der Westhuizen NO and Others (JR1289/04) [2005] ZALC 76; [2005] 10 BLLR 1017 (LC) (18 May 2005)

Sanny v Van der Westhuizen NO and Others (JR1289/04) [2005] ZALC 76; [2005] 10 BLLR 1017 (LC) (18 May 2005)

The court found that while the arbitrator's credibility findings regarding the substantive fairness of the dismissal were sound and not open to interference on review, the arbitrator failed to properly address the procedural fairness aspect. It was common cause that the applicant received notification to attend the disciplinary hearing, but the notification did not set out the charges. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the applicant was informed of the charges prior to the hearing. The arbitrator should have found that the procedure was flawed and awarded compensation for procedural unfairness. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair, and the applicant is entitled to...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 76
Parties
Applicant: Nkwana Sanny; Respondent: Brenda Van der Westhuizen N.O.; Respondent: Bargaining Council for the Meat Trade; Respondent: Watloo Meat & Chicken
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Case Number
JR1289/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Arbitrator's award set aside and substituted. Dismissal found procedurally unfair. Compensation awarded.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Disciplinary Hearing, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Disciplinary Hearing Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkwana Sanny

Applicant

Brenda Van der Westhuizen N.O.

Respondent

Bargaining Council for the Meat Trade

Respondent

Watloo Meat & Chicken

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary hearing notification was adequate and set out the charges.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator correctly assessed procedural fairness and credibility of witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the arbitrator's credibility findings regarding the substantive fairness of the dismissal were sound and not open to interference on review, the arbitrator failed to properly address the procedural fairness aspect. It was common cause that the applicant received notification to attend the disciplinary hearing, but the notification did not set out the charges. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the applicant was informed of the charges prior to the hearing. The arbitrator should have found that the procedure was flawed and awarded compensation for procedural unfairness. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair, and the applicant is entitled to...

Court Disposition

Arbitrator's award set aside and substituted. Dismissal found procedurally unfair. Compensation awarded.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the applicant was procedurally unfair.
  • The third respondent is to pay the applicant compensation equal to two months' remuneration.