Shoe Craft (Pty) Ltd v Fedcrew and Others (J1120/97) [1998] ZALC 5 (31 March 1998)

Shoe Craft (Pty) Ltd v Fedcrew and Others (J1120/97) [1998] ZALC 5 (31 March 1998)

The court found that the first respondent did not commit a gross irregularity in finding the dismissal unfair, as there was no evidence of dishonesty or fraud by the second respondent. However, the arbitrator failed to consider the fixed-term nature of the employment contract, which would have ended on 31 March 1997. Reinstatement was therefore inappropriate, and compensation for the balance of the contract was the proper remedy. The award of reinstatement was set aside and replaced with an order for compensation for the period from dismissal to the end of the contract.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 5
Parties
Applicant: Shoe Craft (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Advocate Moahloli NO; Respondent: Tumelo Andries Makhalema; Respondent: Fedcraw
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1998
Case Number
J1120/97
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application to review and set aside the finding of unfair dismissal is refused. The award of reinstatement is set aside and replaced with an order for compensation.
Judges
Zondo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Fixed Term Contract, Reinstatement, Compensation, Disciplinary Code
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Fixed Term Contract Reinstatement Compensation Disciplinary Code

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoe Craft (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Advocate Moahloli NO

Respondent

Tumelo Andries Makhalema

Respondent

Fedcraw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award reinstating the second respondent was appropriate given the fixed-term nature of his employment.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent committed a gross irregularity or failed to apply his mind to the issues.
  3. 3 Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the misconduct committed by the second respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent did not commit a gross irregularity in finding the dismissal unfair, as there was no evidence of dishonesty or fraud by the second respondent. However, the arbitrator failed to consider the fixed-term nature of the employment contract, which would have ended on 31 March 1997. Reinstatement was therefore inappropriate, and compensation for the balance of the contract was the proper remedy. The award of reinstatement was set aside and replaced with an order for compensation for the period from dismissal to the end of the contract.

Court Disposition

The application to review and set aside the finding of unfair dismissal is refused. The award of reinstatement is set aside and replaced with an order for compensation.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to review and set aside the first respondent's finding of unfair dismissal is refused.
  • The award of reinstatement is reviewed and set aside.