Shoe Town (Pty) Ltd v Mnisi and Others (JR1672/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 434 (18 November 2016)

Shoe Town (Pty) Ltd v Mnisi and Others (JR1672/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 434 (18 November 2016)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to give proper consideration to material facts, particularly the employee's admitted knowledge of store procedures and her unexplained decision to remove the bag without permission. The arbitrator's approach was unduly influenced by criminal law standards rather than the requirements of trust and honesty in the employment relationship. The employee's explanation for her admission of guilt was not credible, and the arbitrator did not adequately address the implications of her conduct for the trust relationship. The court concluded that, had the arbitrator properly considered these factors, she would not have found the dismissal substantively...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 434
Parties
Applicant: Shoe Town (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mpho Mnisi; Respondent: CCMA (Pretoria); Respondent: Commissioner Lizel du Plessis N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Case Number
JR1672/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoe Town (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mpho Mnisi

Respondent

CCMA (Pretoria)

Respondent

Commissioner Lizel du Plessis N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider material factors that would have affected the outcome.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator adopted an incorrect criminal law approach to the disciplinary charge.
  3. 3 Whether the employee's admission of guilt was properly considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to give proper consideration to material facts, particularly the employee's admitted knowledge of store procedures and her unexplained decision to remove the bag without permission. The arbitrator's approach was unduly influenced by criminal law standards rather than the requirements of trust and honesty in the employment relationship. The employee's explanation for her admission of guilt was not credible, and the arbitrator did not adequately address the implications of her conduct for the trust relationship. The court concluded that, had the arbitrator properly considered these factors, she would not have found the dismissal substantively...

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The arbitration award of the third respondent under case number GATW 12776-14 dated 31 August 2015 is reviewed and set aside.
  • No order is made as to costs.